Racing Rules of Sailing - Look to Windward

LTW Readers Q&A | 033; String theory

2009-11-11T16:59:00.000+01:00

From Stephan Zeyn out of Hamburg. A question I had to think about… He presented the following situation in Match Racing:

The leading boat had an outstanding penalty, slowed down on the way to outside of the finishing line at the committee boat and tried to do the usual move, giving a penalty to the trailing boat.

But - the trailing boat passed outside the finishing line to leeward and then crossed the finishing line to back to windward. The boat then turned and crossed from the direction of last mark the finish line again. The race officer scored this boat as first, while the other was still taking his penalty.

Later on we had a heated discussion about this incident. There is case 90 showing similar story at the start and there is the string rule from RRS 28.1.
I did not find any case or call regarding finish specifically dealing with this issue.

The more we discussed, the more it became unclear what the meaning of the word ‘until’ in rule 28.1 entailed. Does it include the procedure of finish, or does it lead to the finish, but not include the finishing procedure itself?

Basically the string rule is a tool to describe how to round the marks on a course. But it is only a tool. Our sport is SAILING, not STRING LAYING.

Believing that the string rule is valid until (including) finish, there is a good chance to get rid of a penalty for a leading boat. Believing it means until (excluding) finish, it would lead to a bigger chance for the trailing boat to finish before the other boat took his penalty turn.

Knowing that you are very much involved in the details of rules, I would be very much interested in your opinion.

Well Stephan, there are always new situations the rule makers haven’t thought about. This is a situation I never have seen before.

First I looked at the word until in the dictionary. Until is described as:

up to the time that or when; till: He read until his guests arrived.
before (usually used in negative constructions): They did not come until the meeting was half over.
onward to or till (a specified time or occurrence): She worked until 6 p.m.

We can draw the conclusion that Rule 28.1 is in effect before the boat ‘finishes’. Everything before that must comply with the ‘string rule’.

If you consider sailing around the finish mark to the other side and then returning over the line to cross from the course side, part of ‘finishing’, your second premise would be true.

But ‘finishing’ is defined. The RRS describes exactly what it is. And in this particular situation the boat does NOT finish until she crosses the line from the correct side. Only then she has finished according to the definition and I agree that the RO should record her as such. But her whole maneuver to go to the outside is something she does before finishing.

So now we come to RRS 28.1. When we draw the string taut, it does not touch the finish mark on the correct side. By going around below the finish mark first, the string touches the outside, and not – as required by RRS 28.1 – the inside.

In order to change the outcome of this match race is to protest the boat for breaking rule 28.1. Either by the RC or by the other boat. And in my opinion the boat should then be disqualified by the PC for not complying with rule 28.1

Scoring the other boat as winner without a protest, is however not correct. She has ‘finished’ before the other boat has completed her penalty and – hopefully – finished also. Was there a red flag by the other boat?

If you have another opinion, don’t hesitate to comment.

Committee-meetings in Busan

2009-11-10T12:16:00.003+01:00

On the ISAF Website a couple of articles have appeared about the meetings in Busan:

The article on the ROC outlines the goals of the committee to be more pro-active in educating race officials in 'underserved' areas, by attaching seminars to significant events.
Have a look at: Charley Cook On ISAF Race Officials.

With all respect for the work that can be done at a hands-on seminar - the ISAF should look into a more interactive solution on the web - giving potential new international officials a place where they can interact with race official from all over the world. A forum? A meeting place?

Also meeting in Korea yesterday was the Racing Rules Committee. Besides the strategy issues highlighted in this article on the website: The Racing Rules Committee, the RRC also has a multitude of submissions to go trough.

I've compiled a file with the submission regarding the RRS: RRS Submissions 2009
In the last weeks I've been going trough them, to give my opinion to the Dutch representative in the RRC. Now the committee has met, I'll share a few with you. I don't know yet what the outcome is - expect to learn that, when LPS returns.

How many people do you recognize?

Submission 147-09 wants to change the definition of how you finish in a match race; You finish when the boat's hull crosses the finish line. Not any other part of the boat or equipment - in normal or not normal position. I think that's a good idea, but... please do it for all disciplines! Also in fleet and teamracing. Let's not introduce another exception.

Submission 134-09; Agreed in principle; but then we need a definition or interpretation of "leaves the mark". When has a boat left the mark? Even with the mark clear astern of the perpendicular line trough her most aft part, she can still be "at" the mark.
PC's need a guideline if they are to establish if a boat has left the mark as a fact.

Submission 166-09; I'm not sure about this one. Basicly it states that the keep clear boat ALWAYS must choose the better option, in this case to tack instead of bearing away. While I agree in this particular case, I don't believe that this is necessary always true. I don't think the ROW boat did enough to avoid the contact and collision. Even when the port had luffed and started tacking, there would have been a contact. Therefore SB did not do enough and broke rule 14. She might then been exonerated because there might have been no damage. But you can also make a case stating that she broke rule 14 while returning to start and at that moment she was keep clear boat.

Do you have a submission(s) favourite? Let me know and I'll ask LPS about the outcome.

Ladies Only 2009 Hamburg, Final part

2009-11-04T13:11:00.000+01:00

Back home I’ve sorted out the photo’s and uploaded them to Flickr.

You can find them here: Ladies Only 2009

I’ve also made a video! My apologies beforehand for the shaking and un-sharp parts. I’ve used my camera to see if I could get any kind of usable result. You be the judge. The video is of the prize-giving ceremony, particular of the winning team: Silke Hahlbrock, Maren Hahlbrock, Julie Wolf & Marion Rommel

Again, my congratulations!

Second and third teams are in the pictures… Winning has it’s rewards…

I enjoyed this event very much. I’ve been going to Hamburg for several years and the club is very hospitable and takes good care of it’s guests. Teams and Umpires alike.

Match Racing on lake Alster is great and I can recommend it to all!

NEW RYA RULES QUIZ

2009-11-03T21:31:00.002+01:00

As published on the RYA Website: OCTOBER / NOVEMBER RACING RULES QUIZ

The quiz is open to all RYA members. The decision of the judges is final – preference will be given to answers from non-race officials. For our “international” audience, we will name the best international entry as well.
Please email all answers to Jacqui Roberts at jacqui.roberts ed rya.org.uk by 30 November 2009.

Question 1

An Optimist (length 2.3m) and a B14 (waterline length 4.3m, overall length with bowsprit 6.1m) are approaching a leeward mark. The B14 is flying her gennaker. The Optimist is clear ahead of the B14. The foremost point of the B14’s bowsprit is 11 m from the mark. The bow of the Optimist is 3 m from the mark.
What is the size of the zone?

(a) 6.9 m
(b) 13.2 m
(c) 18.3 m

Question 2

On the start line in the 49ers, the wind is 18 knots and there is a moderate swell. A and B are approaching the starting line on starboard tack shortly before the starting signal. A is clear ahead of B.
A loses control, slows and capsizes to leeward. In order to avoid a collision, B luffs hard and crosses the starting line by half a length. The starting signal is sounded, followed by a second signal and the display of flag X. B sails on and does not return to the pre-course side of the starting line.
At the end of the race, B is scored OCS and requests redress, saying she only crossed the line early because of the actions of A and to comply with rules 14 and 22.

What should the Protest Committee do, and why?

(a) Grant redress and reinstate her to her finishing position
(b) Grant redress by reinstating her and the addition of an appropriate points penalty for crossing the line early
(c) Refuse redress
(d) Disqualify A, grant redress to B and reinstate her

AUGUST RACING RULES QUIZ
The judges have awarded the prize for August to Douglas Maxwell from London.

A pity the answers for August were not included… And that the judges didn’t name the best international answer as of yet, either… Nevertheless, we can use all the practice we can lay our hands on. So, send in your answers!

Rapid Response Match Race Call 2009-010

2009-11-01T23:55:00.001+01:00

In case I'm not able to finish my report on the last day of the Ladies Only Grade 2 Match Race event, this post will appear on the blog before E-mail subscriptions are send out Monday morning.

Have a look at the latest Rapid Response Match Race call, number 2009-010, as published on the ISAF -website

Reduction in speed is NOT in itself an 'action' within the meaning of rule 15!. This might have far-reaching consequences. I'll start thinking about if there are more 'non actions'. Perhaps you can help? Leave a comment if you find one.

Ladies Only 2009 Hamburg part 2

2009-10-31T17:20:00.005+01:00

To all sports-fans of MR,

With the round robins done and even a great part of the quarter finals, we have had another very productive day on the water. It was cold but it stayed dry. We have rotated twice between umpires also again and now we are full circle.

I've tried to teach some of the national umpires to anticipate what the boats could be doing next and then find a position were they could best see the rule-infringement - if that occurred. It is not only helping them, but it also keeps me sharp to predict what will happen next. In a little more breeze these streamlines can move very fast, so you need to be very quick.

I've had only one comment on yesterday's questions, so I'll let those stand.
As for answer two of the anonymous commenter: How can you justify penalizing a boat for hitting a mark that is not beginning or ending a leg of the course? Which rule did the boat break?

Photos from last years edition

Tonight we are going on a night-cruise with a boat through Hamburg - not with a bus like last year. With diner under the clear moonlit sky..... If I wasn't to old, I would almost start feeling romantic. I'll will however, have a glass of red with my meal...

Until tomorrow (hopefully)
J.

PS. Chief, the flags are definitely too small!

Ladies Only 2009 Hamburg

2009-10-30T17:43:00.003+01:00

Well, dear Sportsfans,

Your roving reporter was today present at the Ladies Only Match Race 2009 on the Alster in Hamburg. (As for the previous four years). A big difference in temperature with Florida last week, but with about the same wind speed and - more importantly - another group of 14! nice ladies teams from all over Europe. Visit the internetsite and look under Regatten, Alsterregatten, Ladies Only.

From "sportlichen" a successful day. Nine fligths with three matches each. We have two groups of seven boats in a round robin each, which sail in Streamlines with two in the trapeze, spinaker and very manoeuvrable. Fun to sail, but also nice to umpire. (And certainly a little faster then Sonars, sorry about that, Pat))

To satisfy your never ending hunger for rules-issues, your roving reporter has three questions for you to ponder:
1: When both boats sail to the wrong windward mark and round it, (we use a three coloured WW-mark system here) what should the RC do?

2: In the rounding the trailing boat touches that mark. What should the Umpires do?

3: Request for Redress; in the very first entry by the Blue-boat the keel (with a depth off 1.60 m) get's stuck on the line of the pinn-end mark. The boat passed the mark about 2.5 m to windward.
The mark gets pulled in and touches the boat. The boat is then for more then two minutes busy to get untangled. In that time she gets two penalties: One for touching the mark and one for not entering (and clearing the line). She subsequently looses the match - not by much but nevertheless. Should the IJ grant redress? And if so, on what grounds?

You can leave your answers in the comments - I hope the editor lets them trough.

More tomorrow,
Cheers
J.

Update for Boats Scenario (2009-10)

2009-10-26T23:44:00.001+01:00

News from Thibaut: The new version of Boats Scenario is released:
Go to Boats 200910 Released for download;

Hello Everyone!
After some longer time than usual a new version of Boat Scenario knocks at the door. This version brings:

Toggle for Path display
Flags on boats
Bubbles to input text
and thanks to our contributors translations for Spanish, German, Swedish and French.

The tool is available for Windows, Linux and Mac as usual.
Furthermore, you may still use your old files with this release and people can read the new files on the old versions (without the display for the new features of course).
If you think that Boat Scenario may benefit from a translation in your language, please do not hesitate to follow the procedure described in another post.

Special thanks to the following people that contributed to this release:
Tom Björkholm, JP Cordonnier, Georg Ehling, Luizo Ferrandiz, Modesto Fernandez Vasquez, and Lisandro Perez Meyer.
Enjoy sailing!

Rolex Osprey St. Petersburg 2009 part 2

2009-10-25T15:39:00.005+01:00

I did not have time to keep you up to date on a daily basis. There are however several diagrams and situations I've been working on, which will be published asap.

I've just finished packing to go home again and found a few minutes to write this post.

The Rolex Osprey is done. Four good days with wind and the complete program was sailed. Together with Tom Rinda and Glenn Oliver, I umpired the finals between Giulia Conti and Anna Tunnicliffe. Up until the finals Anna had a spotless record, winning all her matches.

Not so in the finals! The first race was very close the whole time, with Giulia pushing hard. After a second rule 17 battle, with Anna clear astern to leeward of Giulia, pointing above the pin-end finishing mark, the latter got an overlap and Anna had to gybe to stay on her proper course.
Both entered the zone moments later, with Giulia as inside boat.
By bearing away hard, just passed the pin-end, Giulia won the first race by inches! Anna had not expected this and was visibly disappointed. She and her crew sailed off, to shake the loss...
She did so magnificently by winning the second race convincingly.

The rest will have to wait.. My ride to the airport is imminent.

The flight has been delayed, which gives me a little time to finish this post. Where was I?
Ooh, yes, the score was 1-1. Best of five reduced to best of three. It still could go either way.

In the third start we had some light sparring but it got a little more serious when Anna was called OCS by the RC. She was over the line and had to turn back. Not because she was forced but because she just slightly misjudged the signal... After that she was forced to play 'catch up' and make good a six boat-length lead.
At the second windward mark she was almost there and right on the tail of Giulia. Very good sailing indeed. Unfortunately the spinnaker set was a mess. It "hourglassed" and it took her crew almost a minute to get it straight. That was, as they say, it. Race over and done with. One downwind leg was not enough to catch up again. Giulia finished 3 boat-lengths ahead.
That made the score 2-1

In the meantime some darker clouds were moving in slowly but steadily. It was beginning to look like we were going to have some rain in the 'sunshine state'. With those clouds came wind! it increased to 15 knots and suddenly boats were moving very fast in the pre-start.
Giulia got a penalty for not keeping clear while gybing, Anne relentlessly drove her into that mistake. Very fast and good match racing.
Then, the signal came and again Anna was called OCS!. She immediatly returned to go back but Giulia took the oppertunity and turned also, to get rid of her penalty. She gybed and luffed very quickly followed by a tack, coming out still ahead of Anna on port. That was fast thinking!

We were following closely and expressed our surprise when suddenly the race was abandoned! In the whole fast paced pre-start we missed a 45 degree windshift. Both boats were practically laying the windward mark.

It took some time to adjust the course, the wind moving over to the right, all the time. But we eventually went to race four. Guilia won the start by half a boat length and never looked back. She carefully defended the right side and took advantage of every wind lane and shift.
Although it looked like Anne also found some wind on the left, that did not materialise into any lead at the windward mark. She was a couple of boat-lengths behind.
Giulia won the match by four lengths!

I thoroughly enjoyed umpiring the races with both Glenn and Tom. We were almost always of the same opinion and when not, could resolve our issues quickly.

This has been a fantastic event. Very good sailing, nice atmosphere and fantastic hosts and club.
I feel privileged to have participated and hope to return. Thanks everybody!

Rolex Osprey St. Petersburg 2009

2009-10-22T04:16:00.005+02:00

We've done seven flights today at the Rolex Osprey Match Race. The club has 10 Sonars, so all the teams got their dedicated boat and the flights - with each five matches - went smoothly and efficiently. The RO was very good and her team did a great job.

We don't have rubber-boats to umpire in, but fixed polyester powerboats. The one I got had a 115 hp engine and a good console and seat. When I first saw the boats I had my doubts, but that went away quickly. Manoeuvring is good and with plenty of power you can get to were you need to be quick enough. Only you have to watch out for the wake.

I umpired with an America's cup umpire from Canada today. Since some of the races were decided pretty early in the match, we had time to talk about the Louis Viutton series in Aukland and Valencia. He told me stories about umpire calls and about the - then still- friendly atmosphere among the teams. It made me wish AC 33 was over and done with already. Perhaps I should trow my hat in for the new World Cup series Loius Viutton is setting up.....

We didn't have exceptional situations today, so I don't have much on the rules front. Some 17 overlaps were good to warrant a couple of greens and we did do some yellow's and blue's.

Tomorrow we will see some closer matches as the highest seeded competitors will meet in the end of the round robin. We will do two of those and then on Saturday go to quarter, semi and finals.

The club is very nice and real classic. Big club facilities with even an immense ballroom.
I'll tell you more about it later. For now I'm going to bed.
Don't let the publishing time throw you off. My lap-top is still on the Dutch time zone (CET). It's 6 hours earlier over here.

LTW Readers Q&A | 032 RRS 20 – again.

2009-10-21T06:52:00.001+02:00

This one is again from Sen. It took me some time to understand exactly what he mend, but umpiring the iShares Cup in Amsterdam and Almeria, brought me closer to an answer.

Thema: Question of rule 20.1 and ISAF Q&A 2009-028 published 22 April 2009

Two questions regarding rule 20.1.

Question 1:

Does a hailed boat have to respond to a hail to comply with her obligations under rule 20.1 in the following situations?

(e) When the hailing boat will not have to make a substantial course change to avoid the obstruction?
(f) When the obstruction is a mark that the hailed boat is fetching?

Answer 1:

(e) Yes. The boat that hails breaks rule 20.3 by hailing when safety does not require her to make a substantial course change to avoid the obstruction. However, the hailed boat must still comply with rule 20.1(b).
(f) Yes. The boat that hails breaks rule 20.3 by hailing when the obstruction is a mark that the hailed boat is fetching. However, the hailed boat must still comply with rule 20.1(b).

I can somehow understand the answers, but cannot understand perfectly.

And also RRS 2009-12: New Section C, which prepared by ISAF RRC Section C Working Party, November 2008, says "Hailing for room breaks R20.3 ……
Note: even if A's hail breaks R20.3, steps 1-3 above still apply."

At the situation (e) or the situation (f), if the hailed boat did not respond either by tacking as soon as possible or by immediately replying 'You tack and giving room', and continued to sail on, not changing course, do both boats break a rule?

i.e.: the hailing boat broke rule 20.3 and the hailed boat broke rule 20.1(b)?

The hailed boat was forced to break rule 20.1(b) because the hailing boat broke rule 20.3. Therefore can the hailed boat be exonerated as the innocent victim of the hailing boat's breach of a rule under rule 64.1(b)?

I would be very happy to receive your reply.

Thanks in advance.
Sen Yamaoka

This is my opinion:

Even when the hailing boat is breaking rule 20.3 by one of the reasons you stated, the hailed boat still MUST comply with 20.1(b) and respond either by tacking as soon as possible, or by immediately replying ‘You tack’ and then giving the hailing boat room to tack and avoid her.

Rule 20 is a safety rule. There’s is no middle ground. The hailing boat must trust that the other boat will respond. Otherwise it is usually not save to sail that close to an obstruction on a close hailed course. Bearing away alone will, in nine out off ten cases, not be enough to change the direction the boat is traveling sufficiently to avoid hitting the obstruction. Therefore the hailed boat has been given no other option in this rule but to respond.

After responding, it can then protest the other boat for breaking rule 20.3, if she feels that the hail was not necessary for the reasons you stated.

If the hailed boat does not respond – something she is not forced to do – she breaks rule 20.1(b). In fact then both boats break a rule. The hailing boat breaks rule 20.3 by it’s inappropriate hail as well.

The hailing boat is not forcing the hailed boat to sail on and not respond, quite the opposite in fact. Therefore she can never be exonerated under 64.1(b).

I can well imagine a situation close to a shore where the local sailor will hail apparently too soon, knowing the shallow water he’s coming to, and then be forced, by a not responding windward boat, in to running aground.

Much better the have a system where the boats avoid the danger and sort things out afterwards – if necessary with the PC. That would not happen if the hailed boat thinks he can be exonerated for not responding to the hail.

LTW Readers Q&A | 31 Redress in a short series

2009-10-20T16:41:00.007+02:00

Hedwich send me the following query:

Last weekend we had an event for Finns and Stars at our club. The race schedule was for three races on Saturday and two on Sunday. During the first race two stars were way ahead of the rest and they collided (port-starboard) and the right of way boat broke his mast. The boat who broke his mast had already rounded the last mark and sailed a close hauled course, the second boat still had to round the mark. The boat on port acknowledged his misstake en left the race immediately and retired. As the first two races were sailed back to back, the star with the broken mast repaired his boat as fast as possible, but missed the second race as well. He did sail, and won, the third race. He asked for redress for races one and two.
We granted him redress: average points out of race three, four and five for race one and two.
And then.... there was no wind on Sunday.
So this boat won the event by just sailing, and winning, one race. It doesn't feel good. I know we cannot anticipate on the wheather, but in this kind of short series maybe we should?
What do others think of this?

Well, Hedwich. there's an ISAF Q&A on this subject. It states that for no more then half of the races redress can be given. The score of the boat should be at least half be calculated from actual sailed races.
In your case the Star should have been granted redress for one race. Scored DNC in the second and it's actual sailed score in the third.

You shouldn't feel to stressed though. By the results the boat did sail it deserved first place.

Anybody else?

I'm writing this on the public computer at St.Petersburg Yacht Club. Haven't been able to get online as of yet. Will try again later and hopefully give my comments on the closed poll and this event.
J.

Flog The Blog Day (23)

2009-10-18T21:26:00.002+02:00

A short one this time. I've just returned from an event in Rotterdam and already busy packing for the next one. Tomorrow-morning I'm flying across the Atlantic to the US of A to umpire the Osprey-cup in St.Petersburg Florida.

You know what to do on FTB-Day, don't you?
(If not, well .... I suggest you read the previous 22 (EG))

I'll report back once I'm settled and found a reliable internet connection.
For those of you who want some pictures. I've uploaded a bunch on my Flickr account from the iSharesCup events I've done this year: iShares Cup 2009

LTW on ‘Less is More’

2009-10-16T07:45:00.001+02:00

Please ignore this blogpost in its entirety.

I'm forced to write this to stay in Tillerman’s competition; Less is More. But I don’t want to. It will spoil my fun in the protest-room, if the sailors who read this, actually follow my advice. I would have no more interesting protest to think about. No more discussions on the finer points in the rules with my fellow judges. No more invites to special events at home and abroad, because no-one needs a PC-member any more. No more things to blog about.

So please stop reading now and click onto the next blog you are subscribing to. Okay?

Are you gone? Good~!

The Racing Rules of Sailing has one rule which can be definitely classified as ‘Less is More’.

That’s rule 44.

If you are not familiar with this rule, I’m a very happy judge! Now, don’t go and read it, please don’t read it. It has nothing to do with getting to the finish faster, it will hold you back and make you lose places, you so struggled to gain. You cannot be protested for not following this rule, I assure you! (You can for almost any other rule, but not for this one.)

I want your word you are NOT doing anything even remotely close to what is written in rule 44!

This concludes my entry for Less is More.
Phew… I hope nobody has read this far….

LTW Readers Q&A | 030 One crew-member less?

2009-10-15T12:59:00.000+02:00

Received the following question from Luigi – already some time ago:

Hello Jos,

I don't know if it could be interesting for your blog, but I had an interesting situation in a MR some weeks ago.

One boat had a problem with one member (crew of 5) and was not able to replace. The OA wasn't able to help them so, in the second day of the event and with 8 flights of the RR done, they asked, in the morning during the meeting, permission to compete with one member less then the other boats.

In the NOR was stated, as usual: "The crew will be 4 in case of full male or mixed crew (including skipper) and 5 in case of full female crew (including skipper) and the total weight of crew, measured wearing T-shirt and shorts, shall not exceed 350 kg."

The OA said it was not a problem for them, to let the team race with 4 crew-members. The others skippers said the same.

The jury decided to allow them to race with 4.

To be complete I have to tell you that at the last moment they found a replacement crew and they raced in 5. But the decision of the jury was done anyway.

Your opinion?

Well Luigi, I’m afraid I’ve to disagree with the decision of this jury. I would have voted NO to the request of the boat. Even when all other boats agreed. Perhaps it is a disadvantage to race with four, perhaps it’s an advantage. It will depend on the weather and wind conditions, type of boat and all other variables. But the ‘contract’ as worded in the NOR, stated clearly the conditions. These were not met with one crew member missing. So, five on board or forfeit.

I could be in the minority on this…..

What do other LTW-readers think? Leave a comment and convince me to change my vote.

Ooh, have YOU already voted on the poll? Only 3 days left!
Read blogpost: Continues in the Race - or - Racing?

iShares Cup Almeria Photosnaps

2009-10-14T22:49:00.003+02:00

The contents of my camera after Almeria. I've returned home yesterday from the iShares Cup.
Madrid lived up to it's reputation and lost my bag. Luckily they found it again and a courier brought it back this afternoon.

From my hotel balcony
The event venue

Mother and her Ducklings

Getting ready for the picture...

You can see the rest (and from the iSharesCup-event in Venice) at: Flickr

RRS as an iPhone application

2009-10-12T10:06:00.002+02:00

You can now get the RRS as an application on your iPhone. The RYA has developed the
"RYA Racing Rules iPhone application"
Racing Rules is a quick reference tool for the Racing Rules of Sailing, a mobile application equivalent to the very popular RYA Handy Guide. The text for the Rules Dispute Best Practice from the RYA is also included. Fully referenced against the ISAF Racing Rules.
Go to: RYA Racing Rules

I don't have an iPhone, so someone who has will have to comment on it's usefulness. But I thought it worth mentioning. I'm still in Almeria for the final day in the iSharesCup. More on that later.

Signalling 'Room to Tack'?

2009-10-10T10:12:00.001+02:00

Currently I'm in Almeria for the iSharescup. Practise day yesterday and racing today in the afternoon. In Spain everything is always a little later, so first warning not before three. Which gives me time to discuss a rules-issue with you, in this post.

Two boats on port tack approach a windward mark on the port layline. The mark is to be left to port so they both have to tack to round it. The boat behind is more to windward then the other, but only by half a boatlength and there's almost an overlap. Cumming into the three-length zone there's still no overlap. The helmsman of the boat clear ahead signals as much by waiving his arm up and down.
At the same time a third boat approaches on starboard tack and there's a change of a collission with the first port tack boat. Perhaps the port boat can pass in front, perhaps it can not.
The starboard tack boat thinks it will be too close and luffs. One of the crew waives a Yankee flag and the umpires see this.

The first port tack boat continues as there's now enough room to pass in front of the starboard tack boat. He sails past the starboard lay line and luffs. In the meantime the third boat finds a gap above the mark and tacks into it, rounding the mark. The first port tacker follows and subsequently the starboard boat also rounds the mark.

On the umpire boat the discussion goes like this:
U1: "First port boat did not keep clear of starboard; penalty on port. Did he signal room to tack?"
U2: "Yes, he waived his arm up and down to windward."
U1: "Did we hear him ask for room to tack?"
U2: "No, I didn't, he shouted something, but I couldn't hear what".
U1: "If he signalled 'room to tack', the other port tack boat should have responded. Penalty on the second port tacker. If he didn't signal, we have to penalize him. Are you sure he signalled 'room to tack'?
U2: "Yes, I'm sure he signalled"

They then proceed to penalize the second port tack boat.

In the debrief asking about this incident, they learn that the first port tack boat did not in fact wanted room to tack, but was only signalling 'no overlap'.

In this situation that has very little effect. The clear-ahead boat may have gained mark-room by entering the zone clear ahead, but it can't tack. As soon as it passes head-to-wind, rule 18.2(b) is switched off and it must keep clear of the boat still on port tack.

Nevertheless we, the umpires, made a mistake by penalizing the wrong port tacker. I'm at a loss how we could have done otherwise. Rule 20 overrides 18 an 19. It is a safety rule which MUST be complied with.

Perhaps we need a more clear signal when a boat invokes it?

Or should we ignore all hand signals, save for the absolutely unequivocally clear signal?

Sunday Rules Snap |5

2009-10-04T09:00:00.001+02:00

In our almost forgotten series of rules-pictures this Sunday a message from the other side of the globe. A great look into College Sailing in Japan from Sen Yamaoka.

The first part you find here: Sunday Rules Snap |4

Dear Jos;
Very sorry for my long silence.
I always appreciate your great work in LOOK TO WINDWARD.
The second volume of "From the other side of the Globe: Snipes and 470's", dated May 24, 2009
In Japan, fall is the best season. We have some holidays in the middle of September. We call it the "Silver week" as against "Golden week" in May. There are many types of events, such as art festivals, cultural festivals and sports festivals.
The KANSAI (West of Japan) Intercollegiate Sailing Championship was held from Sep 21 through 23 at the Nishinomiya yacht harbour, which is located between Osaka and Kobe.

The Japanese college sailing clubs cherish their long-established tradition. This time I will focus on the scenery of the shore duties with passing time.

Photo 1: Kickoff ceremony.
Team members are singing a school song in unison before going into
battle.

Photo 2: Meeting.
A coach is giving a lecture to team members. Seniors (students in the fourth year) are sitting on the bench but juniors, sophomores and freshmen are sitting on the ground regardless of summer or winter. There are not enough chairs for all.

Photo 3 & Photo 4: Cheering before leaving from the slope.
Cheering parties consist of substitute members and they are yelling
to competitors. As there is a tremendous gap between the rich and the poor in Japanese economic world, there is a gap between the strong and the weak in college sports clubs. The photo 3 is a champion club's one and the photo 4 is a few members club's one.

Photo5 & Photo6: Prize-giving ceremony.
Sailors change into their uniforms and each flag bearer is hoisting his
club flag. The president awards a testimonial and a trophy to the ladies' winners.

Photo7: Commemorative photo.
The runner-up team members are assembled in front of the club house.

With best wishes;
Sen Yamaoka

Thank you SEN!

A very nice and informative look into your 'sailing' culture. Compared to this, our team racing events present a more undisciplined picture...., although an occasional song might be heard.

If you have a picture for this Sunday Rules Snap don't hesitate to send it in!

Continues in the Race - or - Racing?

2009-10-01T12:39:00.001+02:00

In my last FTBD-post I asked a question about taking a penalty while a crew member had fallen overboard. (Flog the Blog Day 22)

In the comments different answers were given, but I've since come to the conclusion that it might be even more complicated. Let us recap:

This was the original case:

In a race - bigger boats - a crew member falls overboard while the boat is sailing clear to take a penalty. The boat does one turn including a gybe and a tack, picks up the crew member and does it's second turn (with a gybe and a tack) straight after. There is hardly any time lost with picking up the crew member out of the water... The turns are done almost immediately after each other. The boat continues and subsequently wins the race. There's a valid protest on rule 47.2 by another boat. What is your decision?

In the comments different decisions were given:

One decided on DSQ for breaking rule 47.2
Three thought the penalty was incorrect ;
One was undecided, the penalty might be correct;
One wanted to dismiss the protest because the boat does not "make progress in the race";
And even one who himself fell overboard, while expecting the boat to do it's turns. It is the boat being protested, so why not!

For certain, no consensus by a long way.

Precisely because of protests like this, an International Jury is made up from five different persons, who all can discuss the issue and convince each other. And finally vote to reach a decision.

In light of this, I want to set up a POLL again - the last one was already a long time ago - and let all LTW-readers form the "jury panel"

Before I give you the options, there's one other issue I want to raise. If the penalty was incorrect - because you think all crew-members have to be on board to make it valid - the boat has not exonerated itself. That in itself breaks no rule! You cannot be disqualified for not doing two turns - or for doing them incorrectly. You can only be disqualified for the original rule infringement the boat took the penalty for.

If a protest is handed in - like in this case, for breaking rule 47.2 - you need to go back to the original incident to find facts to determine if a boat indeed broke a rule. And since that is NOT what the protest was about, my own opinion is that you cannot do that. It is not part of the incident on the protest form.

But you might think differently, so I will include that option in the poll.

Everybody still with me?

You can vote for the following choices:

Option 1:	Penalty was correct, but the boat broke rule 47.2 by continuing in the race without all crew members on board. DSQ. If while taking a two turn penalty you don't keep clear of another boat (on its proper course), you still have exonerated yourself for the original rule infringement. But you have broken rule 21.2, something you can be protested for anew. If you want to exonerate yourself for that, you need to do another two turns penalty. Unfortunately in our case, you cannot take a two turns penalty for breaking rule 47.2 - it's not in Part 2.
Option 2:	Penalty was correct, no progress in the race, so the boat did not break 47.2. Protest dismissed.
Option 3:	Penalty was incorrect, the boat did not exonerate itself. But protest is dismissed because original incident was not mentioned, and no DSQ
Option 4:	Penalty was incorrect, the boat did not exonerate itself. Panel will investigate and find facts about original infringement. Depending on the outcome the boat will be DSQ'd or the protest dismissed. Even if the incident is not mentioned or described on the protest form, you are of the opinion that incorrectly taking a penalty in itself is grounds for going back to the original rule infringement. It is part of the same "incident".
Option 5:	I'm deciding something else and tell about my arguments and decision in a comment on this blogpost.

I'll let the poll run for a fortnight, say until middle of this month, October 18th. You can convince others by giving your arguments in the comments.

Ooh, you are allowed to change your vote!

LTW Readers Q&A | 029 Overlap?

2009-09-29T13:03:00.001+02:00

Last Monday I received the following questions from a LTW-reader. Since there is still the possibility this might go to an appeal, I'll restrict my answers to his questions.

RE: Overlap, Luffing Rights, necessary contact, etc.

Situation: two boats at the start 15-10 seconds before the start on the verge of being overlapped. Leeward Boat (L) has ~ 45º rake in bow. Windward Boat (W) has a 45º reverse transom and wide flat step in transom.

L has more speed than W.

L claims "overlap," W responds with "no-overlap."

L luffs and makes contact near center of transom causing damage to W.

L protests under Rule 11 - believing that they were clearly overlapped at the time. Claimed contact was necessary to prove overlap.

W protests under Rule 12 and 14 - believing that the instance the point of contact occurred L was clear astern and made no attempt to avoid contact.

Q1: is there an imaginary vertical plane that two boats cannot intersect? I.e. if the bow swings over a transom, but does not touch is that considered contact? A spinnaker pole or boom over another boats side with out physical contact, etc.

Q2: Since this incident occurred by two boats approaching the starting line from a point to leeward of the lay-line of the starboard or committee boat end of the line, is there any way this can be construed as "Barging."

In answer to your first question I've looked at CALL UMP 7:

That vertical plane does exist to determine the overlap, but even when there is an overlap, like in the call above and one of the boats changes course to pass behind the other, the keep clear boat is keeping clear.

The test if a boat is keeping clear is always done according to the definition:

Can the row boat sail her course with no need to take avoiding action?
And if on the same tack & overlapped: Can the leeward boat change course in both directions without immediately making contact with the windward boat.

Both test-questions are answered positive, even when the bow (or bowsprit) swings over the transom.

I'm not an expert in language but in my understanding "barging" is something only a windward boat can do. That boat is sailing lower then a leeward boat and does not want to luff in fear of crossing the line too early or not being able to pass the mark on the correct side. By barging he forces the leeward boat to bear away, in compliance with rule 14 - to avoid contact. A barging boat ALWAYS breaks rule 11 and possibly rule 2.

In the situation you describe the leeward boat luffs. I would not consider this barging by the windward boat. Not on the lay-line to the starboard-end of the start-line and not if it happened leeward of that lay-line.

iShares Cup 2009 Amsterdam | 2

2009-09-27T09:43:00.004+02:00

Race 11: DNF x6
Race 12: DNF x6
In these very light conditions on the water between the Veemkade and Java-island in Amsterdam the Xtreme 40's struggle to get in within the time limit. The first boat free and clear of all others, has the freedom to find every puff and can, on occasion, get ahead very far.
The time limit to finish after the first boat finishes is only five minutes.

Friday there were only one or two, but yesterday the number of boats that did not manage to get a finish place increased. Mitch Booth from Holmatro suggested in the skippers meeting to increase the time limit. The RO insisted that everybody - every skipper - should agree on the change. Specially because this would be a mid series change.

The final proposal was to take 50% of the sailed time as the time limit. For a race of 15 minutes that would mean 7.5 minutes, for a race of 20 minutes a time limit of 10 minutes, and so-on.
That would also have the advantage that even in changing conditions the time limit was appropriate. A good proposal.
But as I said, not all skippers agreed. We revisited the subject in the post-race briefing, but again no consensus. Perhaps it will be decided in this mornings briefing.

If not this event, definitely something to consider for next year.

How about your experiences with time limits? Ever been to late? Was the finish closed by the time you got there? Or perhaps you've had a request for redress about it?

iShares Cup 2009 Amsterdam

2009-09-26T08:59:00.004+02:00

At the iShares cup in Amsterdam only one man is very busy at this moment. And has been for the last 48 plus hours. That is the repairman! On both days there were big crashes resulting in a lot of damage. Hopefully Oman Red can sail again this afternoon. iShares cup

We have to deal with the redress in the mean time. There's no doubt that Oman Blue is entitled to redress. Their scoring was, trough no fault of there own, made significantly worse by physical damage because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2. BT hit them, sailing on Port. But the tricky part is in how much redress.

If you look at Q&A 2007-01 it states that out of the counting races in a boat’s series score, the majority of scores should be based on finishing positions in completed races. The crash took place in the fourth race. Oman Sail Masirah scored a DNF, a 7th and a 3rd in the first three races.
There were 8 races sailed on Friday. Going with the Q&A we can't give them redress for more then three races, not before they've actually sailed five.
So, the outcome is that we will count the next two races - whenever they are sailed - to calculate the average, and award that to the five missed races on friday.
The press is pushing us, because they want to know where Masirah stands, but this is the best we can do.

Umpire Seminar GBR 18-22 Nov 2009

2009-09-19T08:25:00.000+02:00

One of the judges at this event told me that the Umpire Seminar in November in the UK will be the very first TEAM Race Umpire Seminar. I've published about upcoming seminars a couple of days ago, but had no idea this was such an unique event.

Since one of my goals this winter is to learn more about Team-race umpiring, I'm very tempted to go. I want to see how they do it, across "the pond" in the UK, a team race nation if there ever was one. The reason I have this goal is that the umpire system we use in one of the few team race events we do have here in the Netherlands (Five against five with 'Regenbogen' in Holland-Friesland), is no longer working. The action is getting so tight and fast and the sailors are getting so good in there rules-knowledge, that simply following the boats of one team with five umpire boats is not enough to be in the right places at the right times. We are missing too much. Perhaps I can learn something to use next year.

I'm surprised this wasn't advertised with big letters on the ISAF site. At the moment the entry stands at 6. Not enough.

There are a couple of snags.
First one is that the deciding date is Monday the 21st. If by then enough people have entered (minimal 10 persons) the seminar will be held, if not, it will be cancelled. So I need to decide in a couple of days. I can't check about free days at work before Monday, so that is cutting it close.
I've already send in an Email expressing my interest, so I hope they will give me the time to decide.

Second snag is the costs. I'm already an Umpire - don't need another seminar to become one. But to attend I need to pay 375 pounds for the seminar. Add flights (Schiphol - Heathrow), bus to Oxford, Bed&Breakfast for five days, parking at Schiphol and travelling to the airport by car, the total cost runs up just short of a thousand Euro. That is very expensive for a bit of education.

The seminar instructors will be Jack Lloyd and John Doerr, two of the best Team-race umpires. I'm sure I can get a lot out of those two.
I better start checking flights and B&B's.....
To be decided...

In the meantime: If you want to go yourself? Click on the link:
18 Nov 09 - 22 Nov 09; International Umpire Seminar, Great Britain
Oxford Sailing Club, Great Britain.

Flog the Blog Day (22)

2009-09-18T17:04:00.003+02:00

Another 18th, so another FTB-day.
As usual, don't spare the rod.

Please keep on sending me your cases, questions and experiences. I might reject to post them - it still is my blog - but most likely you get your words published. And then around 570 subscribers will read it. The count has gone down a little. Not surprising, since I'm not posting daily any more.
But good enough. Perhaps I'll get more inspiration in winter again.
If you have something to contribute: rrs-study@home.nl

I'm currently at the Open Dutch Championship for Olympic Classes in Medemblik. We had a nice day on the water with three races on all courses. Nice breeze, sunshine and not too many yellow flags.

Heard a new case from my fellow judge which I'm glad to share with you:
In a race - bigger boats - a crew member falls overboard while the boat is sailing clear to take a penalty. The boat does one turn including a gybe and a tack, picks up the crew member and does it's second turn (with a gybe and a tack) straight after. There is hardly any time lost with picking up the crew member out of the water... The turns are done almost immediately after each other.
The boat continues and subsequently wins the race.

There's a valid protest on rule 47.2 by another boat.
What is your decision?

I might postpone posting comments with the answer to give everybody a chance to find the answer. You will have to respond before end of this regatta - Sunday evening, okay?

It looks like we don't have any protest today. End of protest time for all classes have expired...
Only requests for redress if the scoring is faulty.

J.