Racing Rules of Sailing - Look to Windward

Is the definition finish done?

2013-04-10T09:10:00.002+02:00

The 2013-2016 RRS has new wording for the definition: finish

A boat finishes when any part of her hull, or crew or equipment in normal position, crosses the finishing line from the course side. However, she has not finished if after crossing the finishing line she
(a) takes a penalty under rule 44.2,
(b) corrects an error under rule 28.2 made at the line, or
(c) continues to sail the course.

And in the new RRS, the time you have to inform a boat that makes an error in sailing the course, is now specified:

61.1 Informing the Protestee
(a) A boat intending to protest shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity. When her protest will concern an incident in the racing area that she was involved in or saw, she shall hail ‘Protest’ and conspicuously display a red flag at the first reasonable opportunity for each. She shall display the flag until she is no longer racing. However,
(1) if the other boat is beyond hailing distance, the protesting boat need not hail but she shall inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity;
(2) if the hull length of the protesting boat is less than 6 metres, she need not display a red flag;
(3) if the incident was an error by the other boat in sailing the course, she need not hail or display a red flag but she shall inform the other boat before that boat finishes or at the first reasonable opportunity after she finishes;

Let's have a look if we 'combine' these two. First of all, the informing part is mandatory; it says:"...but she SHALL inform…..". You must make a genuine effort to inform the other boat - but when?

Now imagine this scenario:
A boat (call her CLEAVER) sails through the finish line, you are 20 meters behind. As soon as you also have finished, you manage to get closer to the first boat and tell her that she has missed the last mark before the finish. You don't need to hail protest or show a red flag, but you do anyway, to make sure you are seen 'informing' the other. After that you continue to shore, go to the race-office and fill in the protest form.

CLEAVER is scored in fifth position (you became third).

In the subsequent hearing you explain to the panel what you saw and did.

The representative of CLEAVER however, contents that she hadn't finished the first time. Because after you informed her she went back to the racing area, rounded the last mark and crossed the line again. And according to the definition, she only finished the second time crossing the line because she continued to sail the course. Whatever distances or where she sailed in between the second to last mark and the last mark before the finish, didn't matter. She sailed the course and should be scored.

What should the panel decide?
Can a boat still go back in this new definition?

J.

UMPIRE Call; Moving backwards through the water in 2013

2013-04-08T05:32:00.000+02:00

Just below is an animation depicting a situation I encountered last weekend at our local match race winter series in Lelystad. Blue and Yellow do an normal dial-up after entry, but then get into a situation where I didn't know any more.

Before you read any further, take out your rulebook and read 22.3 and C2.9, please.

Wind fairly light, maybe 2 Beaufort; Boats heavy and big; J109's.
We start with 10 - P/SB - Yellow changing course 16 - giving room - Blue under 10 is doing everything she can.
Blue tacks - completes and becomes ROW under 11.
Yellow, to windward, is keeping clear.
Blue stops - does not push her boom, but uses her jib to stay head-to-wind and then starts moving backward.Yellow becomes ROW because Blue is moving backward - rule 22.3 as changed by C2.9 - no 15.
Blue moving backward swings her stern - and is effectively tacking, but still keep clear boat under C2.9. Yellow in the meantime stops and waits. But forces being as they are - even for heavy boats - eventually starts to move backwards. She's never changed tack, so still SB.
At the same time as Yellow is starting to move backward, Blue looses her backward momentum and starts to move forward again - Tack is complete, now on P.
Because Yellow moves backward Blue becomes ROW. Does Blue have a 15? No - she acquired ROW because of Yellow's actions. If Yellow hadn't started to move backward Blue would not have become ROW. Yellow realizing this is going to end in trouble, tries desperately - doing everything she can - to keep clear.
Blue, not wanting to get a collision either, bears away as hard as she can.
But we end up with contact anyway.

Before the 2013 rules, Yellow would have stayed ROW and only because she "changed course from going forward to going backward", with a 16 limitation. In the new rulebook she's keep clear boat.

In the old rulebook I would have penalized Blue for not keeping clear. Blue choose to do this risky manoeuvre and must bear the consequences if it didn't work. Only if Yellow had pushed her boom out, to get to move backwards she would have been penalized - then the situation becomes her "responsibility".

Under the 2013-2013 rules I'm not longer sure.

Does Blue have a 16? If yes, I would penalize Blue , if not - and by deduction Yellow had the 16 - perhaps Yellow should get the penalty. But what is the difference then between the old rule and the new?

If Blue started forward - as keep clear boat - before Yellow started to move backward, Blue does not have a 16. She "changed course" before she was ROW.
If Blue started forward, after Yellow was moving backward she does have a rule 16 limitation. But could she tell?
I couldn't say who started first, neither could my fellow umpire. And we were concentrating on that - not manoeuvring a sail boat.

Anyway, both boats where doing everything the could, once they realized the collision was going to happen.
Still penalize Blue for getting in this position? But she's ROW!
Penalize Yellow for not keeping clear? But she had no chance to so. She didn't push out her sail to go backwards…...

We ended up giving a green flag

But I'm not happy.
Should have been a yellow AND a blue…………
Or what?

Give me your opinion, please.

Nations Cup Regional Final & Batavia Stad NK Match Racing

2013-04-05T16:47:00.000+02:00

P R E S S R E L E A S E

Team Heiner hosts regional finals match racing of ISAF Nations Cup
Lelystad, 5 April 2013 – Team Heiner is proud to be the organizer of the regional finals for Northern Europe of the ISAF Nations Cup. This event will be combined with the Batavia Stad NK Match Racing, which takes place from 3 to 5 May 2013 in Lelystad.

The ISAF Nations Cup is the world championship match racing for national teams. Match racing teams – both men and women teams – from around the world compete in six regional finals against each other. The regional finals will take place between January and June 2013. The winning skippers from each division in the regional finals will qualify for the ISAF Nations Cup Grand Final in August in Copenhagen, where they will be joined by defending champions France (Women's) and New Zealand (Open) as well as host nation Denmark to battle for the 2013 ISAF Nations Cup trophies. The series is sailed every two years. ISAF Competitions Manager Antonio Gonzalez de la Madrid said: "Spread across six continents the ISAF Nations Cup is a fully inclusive event and gives wonderful opportunities for all nations and sailors a chance to test themselves against some of the best match racers in the world."

Northern European teams to Lelystad
Team Heiner is chosen by the ISAF (International Sailing Federation) to organize this year’s regional finals for Northern Europe. During this event, teams from eight countries compete against each other: Denmark, Germany, England, Finland, Norway, Poland, Sweden and The Netherlands. The competition format consists of a full round robin, followed by semi finals and finals. The teams will be sailing on B/Ones, which are equipped with main sail, jib and genaker. Jansma Jacht Almere BV supplies the boats in cooperation with B/One Class Assocation. Here with this new boat deserves its place on the Dutch competition water.

A lot of match racing at 3, 4 and 5 May
The event coincides with the Batavia Stad NK Match Racing, which is kept in May again for the second time. The place where sailors both fight for the Dutch Open Championships as the so-called Europe II qualification in the ISAF Nations Cup is the Markermeer west of the breakwater next to the Houtribsluizen in Lelystad.

Roy Heiner: “I have won the second edition of the ISAF Nations Cup in 1993. We have continued with ten editions now and the event has just become bigger and stronger. The fact that we may organize the regional finals is a great opportunity to expand match racing in The Netherlands. With three full days of action on the water and a shore program with facilities and activities for the audience, it promises from 3 to 5 May to be an amazing spectacle, which is great for the visitors coming to Lelystad”.
________________________________________________________________________________
Note to editors:
For further questions about the regional finals of the ISAF Nations Cup or the Batavia Stad NK Match Racing please contact Helga Oosterkamp of Team Heiner, phone +31 320 269 480 / +31 6 41 56 16 73 or by mail: Helga at teamheiner dot com.

I'm going as an umpire. Haven't given up altogether, boys and girls.....

Why Holland isn't the Netherlands

2012-12-24T15:35:00.000+01:00

For everybody who was sick of me talking about Holland, The Netherlands and Dutch:

The next time I'll open my lap top and show you the video, okay?

Have a good Christmas!
Jos

UK Sailmakers: Rules Quiz program

2012-12-23T10:26:00.002+01:00

Received the newsletter from UK Sailmakers and wanted to pass on their latest:
The NEW UK Sailmakers Rules Quiz program
An excerpt from the mail:

UK Sailmaker’s online Rules Quiz Program has been called “the easiest way to learn the Racing Rules of Sailing.” Every four years, when the International Sailing Federation updates the Racing Rules of Sailing, UK’s Rules experts go back to the drawing board and create a fresh collection of animated quizzes to test sailors’ knowledge of key Rules, providing interpretations of the Rules, and giving detailed answers to the question of “who was right and why.” This year, along with updating the content of the quizzes themselves, UK has revamped the technology driving the Rules Quiz, creating more informative and interesting interactive quizzes.

The new Rules Quiz Program has been retooled from stem to stern, reflecting the latest techniques in online learning tools. To help better understand the situations as they unfold and the ultimate answers, UK has added graphic teaching aids including overlap lines, a circle showing the zone, a rotatable grid in one-boatlength increments, the ability to see the past positions of the boats as they advance through the situation, and the ability to see the track lines of the boats. A user-friendly slide bar allows users to easily advance or reverse the animation to a precise position. The new animations are bigger, more colorful, and the boats moving across the screen are more realistic and lifelike. More info...

Click here for sample quiz.

Last minute Holiday Shopping! Pre-Sales Discount!
The program currently has 45 quizzes with more to come throughout the 2013-2016 quadrennial. UK is in the final stages of preparing the program and plans to have it finished by the middle of January 2013. The new Rules Quiz will be available for $55.00 U.S. through the UK Sailmakers online store, but you can purchase a pre-release copy thru December 31,, 2012 at a discounted price of only $40.00 U.S. Since the program lives in the Cloud and won’t come in a box, you can order the program now and still be able give an e-mail gift certificate to someone for Christmas. This is a great present and even better last-minute gift idea.

I've not run every quiz yet, but the ones I did are great! Clear animations with lots of cool additions. Overlap lines, tracks and other information to judge the situations.....

I only wish it was as clear as this in a hearing!

Changes in Rule 69; part Two

2012-12-15T10:14:00.004+01:00

The second change in rule 69 is about the 'standard of proof' that should be used on the evidence:

Rule 69.2(b):
……. If it is established to the comfortable satisfaction of the protest committee, bearing in mind the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, that the competitor has broken rule 69.1(a), it shall either…...

I have had a very hard time finding out what 'comfortable satisfaction' means. The Casebook working party is preparing a Case to explain to protest committees what the “comfortable satisfaction” standard means and how they should apply it. But that will take - according to my sources - several more weeks, before that is finalized.

Search results

A search on the Internet spewed out several doping cases where this 'standard of proof ' is discussed;

A couple of quotes from an article by Daniel Dawer, with the title: Leveling the Playing Field: Why the USADA Must Adopt a Criminal Burden of Proof in Anti-Doping Proceedings

Article 3.1 of the World Anti-Doping Code, states that such a standard "is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.“

Accordingly, the WADA established a burden of proof “greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt”: namely, prosecutors must establish an athlete’s guilt “to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body.” The standard’s ambiguity emerges from a failure to define “comfortable satisfaction.” Is it closer to preponderance of evidence—the evidentiary standard in civil proceedings—or closer to beyond reasonable doubt?

And from an article by Angel R. Puerta: Uncomfortable Satisfaction

Athletes need no longer be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in doping cases - a near impossibility in many instances - but rather they must be proven guilty "to the comfortable satisfaction" of the panels hearing their cases.

The new standard brings common sense into the pursuit of a level playing field. Obvious cheaters can no longer hide beyond a "we have never tested positive" gimmick that is built upon clever drugs and astute event and training schedules.

From an article on Velo News: Dick Pound talks Floyd Landis, Lance Armstrong and the system

“Absolutely,” Pound said. “You can do a lot more with a confession like that and allegations and information that they can provide than you can ever do with results that come from the odd guy who pees in a bottle. In principle, I am very comfortable with it.”

In criminal trials, he said, “you can hang people even without bloodstained clothes. It’s a matter of having the kind of panels and the people on those panels who are in a position to weigh the evidence and arrive at the level of proof — to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel — that CAS has adopted as the standard of proof.”

Pound added that the more rigorous “comfortable satisfaction” standard is applied to anti-doping authorities when presenting their evidence “but the athlete must only meet a ‘balance of probabilities’ standard (when submitting evidence in their defense). It really is all well calibrated.”

Citing a hypothetical example of someone charged with distribution of 300 syringes of Aranesp, Pound said: “You don’t need the actual syringes to make the case. Eyewitness testimony of a delivery, credit card receipts … all of that is admissible and it’s up to the panel to weigh that evidence.”

The legal standards of proof can be found on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
I've compiled a table and placed 'comfortable satisfaction' where I think it should be, which is level 8

TABLE 1: "STANDARD OF PROOF"

	Level	Standard of proof	Description	General use (& Sport related)	RRS (2013-2016)
	10	Exclusion (elimination) of all other possibilities. Also: beyond the shadow of a doubt)	No other reason can be found – however unlikely – that can explain what has happened. There is NO doubt. Impossible to achieve; even in law cases this is never used	-	-
A	9	Beyond a reasonable doubt	In negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise.	Criminal Cases	Gross Misconduct (RRS 69; before 2013)
	8	With comfortable satisfaction, required by the seriousness of the allegation	It is highly unlikely that the allegation is not true.(note 1)	Doping and (often) in Appeal Cases	Gross Misconduct (RRS 69; since 2013)
B	7	Clearly established/ clear and convincing evidence	With a high degree of probability established that the allegation is true. A firm belief or conviction in its factuality.	Equity Cases (paternity, juvenile delinquency, child custody, wills, etc.)	Fair sailing & sportsmanship (RRS 2)
C	6	Balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence	The proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true.	Civil Cases / Rules of the Game	All RRS Except 2 & 69
	5	Substantial evidence	Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion	-	-
	4	Some credible evidence		-	-
	3	Probable Cause for arrest		-	-
	2	Reasonable to believe		-	-
	1	Reasonable suspicion
	0	Benefit of assumption	Needs no evidence to support a claim	-	-

Note 1 | The standard of proof 'Comfortable Satisfaction' is more than 'Clearly established' and certainly more than 'Balance of probabilities', but less than 'Beyond a reasonable doubt'. I've added my description in italics - since I could not find any other.

Submissions

I did find a description in the submission that prompted this change. There were three submissions about rule 69 this year; Submission 123-12, Submission 124-12 & Submission 125-12.

The Racing Rules Committee noted their recommendations in the minutes: Racing Rules Committee Minutes.

(g) Submission 123-12 - New Case (A) - Rules 69, 69.2(c);
Recommendation to Council: Reject
The example is too complex. See Submission 125-12.
(h) Submission 124-12 - New Case (B) - Rules 69, 69.2(c)

Recommendation to Council: Reject
Undesirable to use recent identifiable case. See Submission 125-12.

(i) Submission 125-12 - New Case - Rule 69.2(c)
Recommendation to Council: Approve with the following amendment
Approve with the addition of a sentence stating that "comfortable satisfaction" is used by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Case Book Working Party to edit and include the concept set out in the final paragraph of Submission 124.12, Comparison with other Standards of Proof.
Case Book WP to include an example along the lines of the example in Submission 124-12. The edited case is to be approved by the RRC.

Comfortable Satisfaction?

The Council minutes have not been published yet. So the final decision is not yet in the public domain. Nevertheless following this trail, there are a few interesting insights about 'comfortable satisfaction' in these documents:

Rule 69.2(c) specifically requires that in a rule 69 hearing the protest committee use the more strict ‘comfortable satisfaction’ standard and, furthermore, that the more serious the allegation, the stricter the committee’s standard should be. That standard is always greater than the ‘balance of probabilities’ standard but is less than the standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. In between these two limits, the standard of proof is a sliding scale, based on the seriousness of the allegations before the committee.

It is also a fundamental principle in disciplinary proceedings that competitors must be regarded as innocent until any allegation is proven against them. Therefore part of the comfortable satisfaction test is whether or not the evidence presented to the committee is sufficient to mean the competitor is no longer presumed to be innocent.

The last sentence of the Terminology section of the Introduction implies that words ‘comfortable’ and ‘satisfaction’ are used in rule 69.2(c) in ‘the sense ordinarily understood in . . . general use.’ Both ‘comfortable’ and ‘satisfaction’ are frequently used in everyday speech, and so most judges will be familiar with how they are generally used. Judges could also consider whether they feel ‘uncomfortable’ with any conclusion reached. If they are uncomfortable, then they are not comfortably satisfied.

It should be noted that in a rule 69 hearing, the protest committee must answer ‘Yes’ to both of the following questions before it warns or penalizes a competitor or boat under rules 69.2(c)(1) or 69.2(c)(2):

Is the committee comfortably satisfied that the facts found establish that the alleged conduct occurred?

Is the committee comfortably satisfied that the conduct that occurred was gross misconduct?

As rule 69.1(a) states, an act of gross misconduct may be a gross breach of a rule, good manners or sportsmanship, or conduct that brings the sport into disrepute.

In Submission 124-12 (which was recommended to be rejected) the final paragraph makes a comparison on the evidence between three standards of proof. The case does not meet the requirements of "beyond a reasonable doubt", but does (with a margin) meet the "balance of probability" criteria, since nearly all evidence supports the allegation.

Reports

Since we all will have to learn work with this 'new' standard of proof, it would be of great benefit to us all, if the Working Party was kept informed on Rule 69 hearings in the next four years. If you are involved in such a case - it would be prudent to make sure that your insights are included in the (IJ-,IU-,RO-)reports. The exact reasons why the panel members thought that the standard 'comfortable satisfaction' was met or not met, the latter just as important as the first.

Changes in RRS 69; part One

2012-12-11T15:48:00.000+01:00

In the new RRS 2013-2016, Rule 69 has been extensively rewritten.

The main differences are:

It is now written in the rule that competitor may not commit gross misconduct - and for the purpose of this rule - what a competitor is.
The standard of proof in rule 69 hearings has been changed - in line with the doping rules and the practices of the CAS.
National Authorities have no longer a choice, they must start an investigation if they receive a report involving a rule 69 case.

Let's start with the first difference:
The change in wording makes it clear that committing gross misconduct breaks a rule in the RRS - something that was previously implied - but not actually written in so many words. And since 'breaking a rule in the RRS equals a penalty' is well established in other rules, the rule is now more consistent with the rest of the book.

It is now also made clear what is meant by 'competitor' in the rule 69:

Throughout rule 69, ‘competitor’ means a member of the crew, or the owner, of a boat.

There seems to be a typo in this sentence? Should it read 'or a boat'? Or perhaps the comma is misplaced and the sentence should read: 'or the owner of a boat'. I'll leave that one up to the rule makers…..

Several people, to whom I've had contact about this rule, expressed their disappointment that this last change is not nearly far (or good) enough.
Originally in the submission this sentence was:

For the purposes of rule 69, a competitor includes a person in charge, a boat owner and any other person who has agreed to be governed by the rules.

Let me put it this way, in asking this question:

If a parent of a sailor misbehaves, or a coach does something that is absolutely considered misconduct, can the PC or Jury start a rule 69 hearing?

With the wording used in the original submission you could make an argument that a coach or parent - simply by participating in the event - had agreed to be governed by the rules. And if you think that's not enough, an organization could have - before giving permission to go on the water and registering as a coach - included a statement to be signed by the parent of coach, in where he or she agreed to be governed by the RRS. Then rule 69 could have been used in dealing with misconduct by such a person.

In the wording as it is written now in the RRS 2013-2016, no PC or Jury can do anything against a coach or parent who misbehaves. They can only conduct a hearing if it involves a competitor.

In light of recent events in the Netherlands - where a volunteer officiating at a soccer match, was attacked and killed by supporters - this seems to be a missed opportunity. Not that a PC should deal with such an excess.

But to be able to adequately respond to misconduct by anyone involved in sailing, wouldn't it have been better to have the PC or Jury deal with gross misconduct at an event? I'm not saying that respect for officials (who are mostly volunteers) shouldn't be encouraged by other means. But if we want to prevent our sport to slide off, with the growing trend of abuse in society, we need adequate procedures and rules to deal with anyone at an event. Not only the actual sailors.

And before you tell me that this should be left to the MNA, they cannot act under the RRS either. Only after receiving a report involving a competitor, they can act against a third person

Next time, the second (major) change in rule 69:

What does 'comfortable satisfaction' as standard of proof mean?

RRS 2013-2016; Rule 18.3

2012-11-09T21:48:00.000+01:00

Rule 18.3 has been changed in the new RRS 2013-2016;
(duh, otherwise I wouldn't have had to write this)
I'm not quite sure if the chosen language does not have a much greater impact than first assumed;

Was it the intention of the Rulescommittee to change the rules for boats changing tack in the zone?

This is what the rule is now:
18.3 Tacking in the Zone

If two boats were approaching a mark on opposite tacks and one of them changes tack, and as a result is subject to rule 13 in the zone when the other is fetching the mark, rule 18.2 does not thereafter apply. The boat that changed tack
(a) shall not cause the other boat to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact or prevent
the other boat from passing the mark on the required side, and
(b) shall give mark-room if the other boat becomes overlapped inside her.

This is what the rule in 2013-2016 is going to be:
18.3 Tacking in the Zone

If a boat in the zone passes head to wind and is then on the same tack as a boat that is fetching the mark, rule 18.2 does not thereafter apply between them. The boat that changed tack
(a) shall not cause the other boat to sail above close-hauled to avoid contact or prevent
the other boat from passing the mark on the required side, and
(b) shall give mark-room if the other boat becomes overlapped inside her.

I have two scenario's for your consideration:

Situation A

Situation B

The PC find as fact that Purple had completed her tack (was no longer subject to rule 13) when the other boats (Grey and/or Red) changed course.

Is in the new rules (RRS 2013-2016) the Purple boat breaking rule 18.3?

Leave a comment.
J.

DMTRA Wintertraining Matchracen en Teamzeilen.

2012-11-07T10:00:00.000+01:00

De kans om een heel weekend te trainen in de disciplines matchracen en teamzeilen. In het weekend van 24/25 november organiseert de Dutch Match & Team Racing Association (DMTRA) een trainingsweekend voor matchracen en teamzeilen. Twee dagen lang wordt er getraind onder leiding van ervaren trainers en gasttrainers die hun sporen in deze takken van sport hebben verdiend. Het belooft een spetterend en leerzaam weekend te worden.

In hetzelfde weekend vindt, in samenwerking met het Watersportverbond, ook een umpire opleiding plaats.

Voor wie is het bedoeld
De DMTRA Wintertraining is zowel bedoeld voor zeilers die kennis willen maken met matchracen en teamzeilen als ook voor zeilers met al enige ervaring in deze disciplines die zich verder willen ontwikkelen. Verder is de Wintertraining bedoeld voor zeilers die willen worden opgeleid tot umpire. Een combinatie van zeiltraining en umpiretraining is ook mogelijk.

Matchrace/Teamzeiltraining
Korte wedstrijden, één tegen één of team tegen team, waarbij de adrenaline vol door de aderen stroomt. Niet op zoek naar vrije wind maar naar je tegenstander. Geen moeilijke situaties vermijden maar de regels ten volle uit nutten. Dat is matchracen en teamzeilen. Dat gaat niet vanzelf maar moet worden getraind. Alle fasen van een race, van prestart tot finish, zullen apart worden geoefend en getraind. Boot-handling, tactiek en regelkennis zullen zowel in de praktijk als in theorie ruimschoots aan bod komen.

Umpire-opleiding
De disciplines matchracen en teamzeilen zijn een jurysport. De sport kan alleen bestaan met de inzet van deskundige umpires. Daarom wordt tijdens de DMTRA Wintertraining, in samenwerking met het Watersportverbond, een umpireopleiding gegeven. Deze umpireopleiding maakt deel uit van de officiële opleiding tot umpire van het Watersportverbond. De opleiding zal voor het grootste deel in de praktijk worden gegeven door erkende umpires waarbij samen met de zeilers wordt getraind op specifieke situaties en fasen in de race. Onderdeel van de opleiding is een gezamenlijke dag met andere race officials in opleiding, later in het jaar.

Plaats & tijd
De trainingen zullen worden gehouden op zeilschool “Us Hiem” in Oudega(W) in Friesland in het weekend van 24/25 november. Iedereen wordt vrijdagavond al verwacht want op vrijdagavond om 20:00 uur gaan we van start.

Kosten
De kosten die verbonden zijn aan deze wintertraining zijn € 40,- voor (staf)leden Vinea/DMTRA en € 60,- voor niet leden. De kosten zijn all in.

Inschrijven
Inschrijven kan vanaf nu door een aanmeldingsformulier in te vullen. Je kunt je individueel inschrijven maar mocht je met je team willen trainen dan kan dat natuurlijk ook .Wij zorgen voor de juiste indeling.

Informatie
Voor informatie kun je terecht op de evenementenpagina van de website van DMTRA (www.dmtra.nl) of kun je contact opnemen via info@dmtra.nl

RRS 2013-2016; Rule 18.2

2012-10-20T11:56:00.000+02:00

I've been brooding on rule 18.2 for a couple of days - (weeks even). Originally had planned to post much earlier. I have a hard time finding a meaningful difference between our current rulebook and the new one, regarding this rule.

The wording has changed:

18.2(c ): When a boat is required to give mark-room by rule 18.2(b),
(1) she shall continue to do so even if later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins;
(2) if she becomes overlapped inside the boat entitled to mark-room, she shall also give that boat room to sail her proper course while they remain overlapped.

The (1) and (2) split is in line with the general change in the way rules are being written. It makes it clear that both apply all the time for a boat that does not have mark room.

Why the addition of (2)?
In the current rule book a boat that 'stuck its nose in' was not entitled to mark room and could be shut out by the other boat. As long as that boat was sailing its 'proper course' while rounding the mark, it was exonerated for any infringement of a rule of section A and for breaking RRS 15 or 16. It could luff as hard as it wanted - provided it did so, to sail its proper course. If she did more - sail above her proper course - she still cold shut out the inside boat, but she then had limitations under 15 and 16.

This is now directly written in rule 18.2(c)(2) in the RRS 2013-2016.

The definition of mark-room has no longer 'room to sail her proper course while AT the mark' part - so that needed to be addressed by the working party. They have chosen to write that part into the rule directly. Straight into 18.2(c). A proper choice, in my opinion.

The animation (and picture) show the Grey boat pointing its bow between Red and the mark, trying to 'sneak in'. Red doesn't want that, but leaves a wide enough gab between itself and the mark initially and then forcefully 'shuts the door' by luffing very hard.

In the current rules Red is entitled to mark-room and may sail her proper course AT the mark. She is however sailing well above that proper course. And therefor no longer 'protected' by the mark-room exoneration for breaking rule 16.
In the new rules this is still the case - only now it is written in 18.2(c) directly. Instead finding this conclusion by way of the definition and exoneration, it's now in the rule.

Grey may try to go inside and she's entitled to a fair cop when caught. Not an entrapment by Red....

Ooh, the other change in rule 18.2 is one from long standing in Match - and Team Racing. To get out of another 'unfair' deal.

18.2(e) If a boat obtained an inside overlap from clear astern or by tacking to windward of the other boat and, from the time the overlap began, the outside boat has been unable to give markroom, she is not required to give it.

From the Team Race Call book: E10:

The current rules dictate that the White boat must give mark-room to the Grey boat...... Even if she's not able to do so, because the overlap was not established from clear astern, but in the tack.
That has now been addressed by the change in 18.2(e).
If White is not able, she doesn't have to give mark-room.

Please leave a comment if you have a different opinion about 18.2.
J.

Next time 18.3. It is slow going, but we will get there, eventually

RRS 2013 - 2016; Mark-room & Tactical rounding

2012-10-05T09:04:00.000+02:00

The New Racing Rules for Sailing have been published on the ISAF Website and I've been studying what the changes mean for sailors on the water. In the coming months I hope to write several posts about that and will try to publish on every Friday. (More, if I have time)

The The RRS 2013-2016 do not come into effect until the first of January, but if you want a head start on your competition, have a butcher.*

In order to find out what the effect of changes in rule 18 will be, we need to look first at the definition of mark-room:

Mark-room

Room for a boat to leave a mark on the required side. Also,

(a) room to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it, and

(b) room to round the mark as necessary to sail the course.

However, mark-room for a boat does not include room to tack unless she is overlapped inside and to windward of the boat required to give mark-room and she would be fetching the mark after her tack.

A boat which has mark-room may sail a course that leaves the mark on the required side. Nothing new there, save it that leaving a mark on the required side can be done at many distances….
You can leave a mark to port (as asked in the SI) as close as the circumstances permit or at several boat lengths.This is important, because you want to know if you always can make a tactical rounding.

Low in - high out, right?

Do the a) and b)- parts of the definition provide you with an answer?

Let's start with b) - room to round the mark as necessary to sail the course…., hmmm, I don't think so. Necessary to sail the course is very close - as close as the circumstances permit. Closer if it's only 5 knots, than if it's blowing 30. But close, nevertheless. So no Donald Duck** there

Part b) does not give you the room to do a 'tactical rounding'.

Perhaps part a) does?

- room to sail to the mark when her proper course is to sail close to it,

Close to it? You will want to sail a boat length beside the mark initially, to do a tactical rounding!

Let me explain why this part was added;

In the RRS 2009-2012 the definition of mark-room gave you the room to sail TO the mark - in a straight line. That gave a windward keep-clear boat, the right to 'shut out' a leeward right-of-way boat. For instance at the finish line:

Purple enters the zone clear ahead. RRS 18.2(b) gives her mark-room. The room to sail TO the mark.

Purple might infringe rule 11, but is exonerated because she's sailing TO the mark.

This was never intended by the rules. Therefore part a) in the new definition now only gives the room to sail close to the mark, to the boat with mark-room, if her proper course is to do so. And in the example it is clearly not. Purple could finish much sooner if she kept on sailing close-hauled.

Part a) clearly also does not give a boat the room to make a tactical rounding. The use of the term 'proper course' is only when that course is CLOSE to the mark. It does not mean you can sail your proper course when that is WIDE from the mark - as is needed when doing a tactical rounding.

The final part of the definition is almost the same as in the previous rules. You get room to tack, if there's a boat to leeward of you at the mark. That is the same as in the 2009-2012 edition. But new: that room is only available if you can fetch the mark after your tack. Not if you have to do another one after that.

In effect the new definition of mark-room is initially more than it was in the RRS 2009-2012. You no longer have to sail straight TO the mark. But it is also less than it was in the RRS 2009-2012; AT the mark you can no longer sail your proper course. In fact it is the room as most sailors have always thought it was; rounding the mark in a seaman-like way to sail the course.
The right to do a tactical rounding however, is solely depending on whether or not you have right-of-way when rounding a mark. If you are the keep-clear boat, all the room you get, is to sail close to it and round it as necessary to sail the course.

Next issue: What is the effect of the changes in Rule 18, with this new definition of mark-room?

(butcher's hook = look)
(Donald Duck = luck)

AC 34 Umpire Booth Replay: USC-USS

2012-10-03T12:58:00.000+02:00

AC45, umpire booth displays: San Francisco 2012, August 26. Match Race between USC (Coutts) and USS (Spithill).

For those of you who are unfamiliar how umpiring is done at the America's Cup 45 -events; Umpires are stationed in a booth with a display of the boats on the water. The tracking has become quite accurate (within 2 cm) and the system displays all relevant information instantly. Starboard tack boats are green, Port tack boats are red. And when boats are overlapped the hulls are yellow.

When a boat wants to protest because they feel that another has infringed a rule, they press a button and the protest 'flag' is shown on the screen and recorded. Then the umpires - who have been following the incident as if they were on the water - take a decision and press the penalty or green flag button.

In the video you see the zone light up when the first boat enters the zone. USC is at that moment clear ahead and has mark-room. Nevertheless USS goes in and establishes an overlap after. She's not keeping clear under rule 11 and not exonerated because she has no mark-room.

When the penalty is given the boat must slow down until the penalty line has caught up. The line is initially two boat lengths behind the boat and traveling half it's speed. You can see USS luff up to loose speed until the line has caught up

There's also another boat on the screen. That is the on-the-water umpire. (On a jet-ski) He's not umpiring but 'winging'. Giving relevant information to the booth-umpires. Like if a boat is actually doing everything to keep clear, what the closest distance was or is. Things that are not deductible from the electronic display.

Pretty neat, don't you agree?

LTW Readers Q&A (63); Tacking at the Finish?

2012-10-02T11:24:00.000+02:00

A Q&A from David and Vernice about a situation close to the finishline:

A couple of months ago David was a member of a protest committee which heard the following case:

Two one-design boats (Blue and Red) were approaching the upwind finish line in one of several races in a multi-class regatta. Both boats were on port tack near the port (left) end of the line, looking upwind.There were about 2 1/2 boat lengths separating the two boats, gunnel to gunnel.
Both boats were well within the 3-boat-length zone and had entered the zone almost simultaneously, with the windward Blue boat being slightly closer to the finish line than the leeward Red boat.
The leeward (right hand) Red boat suddenly tacked onto starboard. The windward Blue boat, which was slightly closer to the finish line, crash-tacked to avoid a collision.
After her tack, the Blue boat was outside the lay-line, to the left-hand end of the finish line, and had to execute a jibe to circle around and finish after the Red boat had crossed the line.

The Blue boat hailed "protest" and raised a red flag immediately. She filed a protest within the time limit. She alleged, citing Rule 18, that she should have been given mark-room as the inside boat and allowed to finish on her port-tack course.

The facts found that both boats were overlapped on port tack on their approach to the finish line, with 2 1/2 boat lengths of separation, well within the three-boat-length circle. Both boats were within the port-tack layline to the finish, and the Blue boat would have finished first if they both remained on port tack.

Even though both boats entered the zone on the same tack, the P.C. ruled that the last sentence in the preamble to Rule 18 and Rule 18a indicated that Rule 18 did not apply in this situation because: after the leeward boat (Red) tacked, "both boats were on opposite tacks on a beat to windward." Therefore Blue was not entitled to mark-room (since Rule 18 was shut off). Red was within her rights to tack onto starboard within the zone, becoming the Right-of-Way Boat and forcing Blue as the Give-Way Boat (Rule 10) to tack away onto starboard and be unable to fetch the line.

The questions are:
1.) Did the rule-makers intend that the last statement of the Rule 18 Preamble, along with Rule 18a, would allow the outside leeward port (Red) boat to have such a powerful weapon of being able to tack onto starboard and force the windward port boat (Blue) to tack away and be unable to fetch or to claim mark-room, even though both boats entered the zone overlapped on the same (port) tack and with the windward port boat closer to the mark? Was the Blue boat in that situation unable to invoke Rule 18?

2.) Can the last part of the Preamble, along with Rule 18b, be construed to mean that the proper course for the leeward port boat (Red) should always be to tack in this situation, so that she would be able to shut off Rule 18 and finish before the Blue boat?

I have a question of my own: You mention a crash-tack by Blue. Did she have to respond before Red was on a close hauled course? According to my animation of the incident that is almost unavoidable. I’m assuming the PC did not find that as fact, otherwise they would have DSQ-ed Red for not keeping clear while tacking. And a crash tack is not seaman-like. If that was the only way Blue could keep clear, Red possibly broke rule 15.

Answer 1: YES. As soon as Red tacks to starboard, both boats are on a different tack and rule 18 is switched off per 18.1(a). Have a look at case 95 in the casebook

Answer 2: Proper Course? Maybe you can call it a good tactic, but not proper course. The definition proper course does not take into account whether a boat finishes before or after.
It is only the fastest way to the finish.
But if Blue ‘allows’ this manoeuvre it is a good way for Red to make sure she finishes before Blue.

There is an affective tactic to defend against such a manoeuvre. If Blue makes sure that Red can never complete her tack without keeping clear, she is effectively blocked and Blue wins.
In order to do this she must bear off and close the gap between her and Red. Not too close, she’s still keep clear boat (and has no protection from her mark-room, because she’s not sailing directly TO the mark) but close enough so that Red cannot tack.

David and Vernice came back to me, with an answer to my question and additional questions. Watch this space for part 2 of LTW Readers Q&A (63).

Alpari World Match Racing Tour Rules

2012-09-28T11:18:00.000+02:00

I'm currently umpiring at the Alpari World Match Racing Tour in Marseille (France).

This event has been given permission by ISAF to 'tweak' the Match Racing rules (appendix C) to better fit the needs of the event. More close encounters, giving the trailing boat a fighting chance when she catches up, more consistency in umpire decisions, things like that.

It is a lot harder to tweak the rules as they are, than you think. I know everybody has his/or her specific ideas what should be changed (including me) but the consequences are not always directly apparent. You change one or two rules and think you have the situation well under 'control'. Two days later a situation pops up that isn't anticipated and there's a problem. The changes at the AWMRT have been well thought out and seem to work so far.

We have a changed penalty system. One that has been tried out years and years ago, but seems to make a comeback;

Changes to Rule C7.2 All Penalties
Add new C7.2(a) and change current C7.2(d) then renumber all points.
C7.2(a) After being signalled under rule C5.2 or C5.3 and within the limitations of rule C7.3, a penalized boat may elect to take the penalty immediately by crossing behind the stern of the other boat.

In order to take this penalty a boat must cross behind the stern of the other boat:
the hull of the boat taking a penalty must cross completely from one side of the centreline to the opposite side of the centreline of the other boat in the match.

To clarify this, a AWMRT Call has been published. Have a look: AWMRT 2012 CALL 002.pdf

Having done the Round Robin with 66 matches in 17 flights I would have expected to have seen this happen a couple of time. Alas, in the matches I've umpired, none. Nevertheless I think this is worth to keep in. It keeps the boats together and most penalties in match racing are not for big crashes. 'The punishment to fit the crime' as they say.

Because when 'the crime' is more serious, we have another tweak:

C6.5(b) The red-flag penalty in rule C5.3 shall be used when a boat has gained a controlling position as a result of breaking a rule.

In order to be consistent this needs a new definition:

C2.21 Add the definition Control
A boat has control of another boat in her match when she is in a position to be able to impede, affect or change the actions of that boat.

This one is a harder to implement. Sometimes boats can affect each other. For example take a standard windward/leeward situation after the start. Leeward can luff and affect Windward, but cannot pass head to wind without risking not keeping clear. And so Windward can prevent Leeward from going to the other side. Boats affect each other. It also depends on where the boats are on the leg. Windward's control is greater when nearing the lay-line to the top mark…. There's a balance of control. Sometimes all to one boat and sometimes a little more to one but not zero to the other.

With this definition umpires look at the control issue and decide if a boat has gained enough control - the balance is tipped enough to their side - to warrant a red flag penalty. A penalty they have to take immediately. Which might be a crossing penalty.

I'm still trying to get my head round this new definition, but at least we are now consistently thinking about the control balance.

I'll talk about the changes to rule 16 and 17 another time.
J.

(PS: The download link of the AWMRT CALL is on Data Host File; not on the webspace of my provider. So you need to download the file instead of getting it directly. Sorry about that, but I've used up all my space and am looking for additional room..... Do any of you have suggestions?)

Ultimate trapeze?!?

2012-09-26T06:47:00.000+02:00

A picture send in by Stevie Kouris I think you shouldn't miss:

He had the following questions:

Then I went to the IJreport website to read the report from the regatta and there was a protest against that boat but the protest was dismissed because no rule was broken. Thinking it over and over and reading the Rule book it seems that actually they don't break any Rule, but the following question (more like a curiosity) came to my mind.

Is the helmsman considered to be on board? If yes, what does being on board mean? Is he considered to be on board only because he is not in the water? If a crew member is in the water holding himself onto a sheet is he considered to be on board?

Stevie is referring to rule 47.2 which states: No person on board shall intentionally leave, except when ill or injured, or to help a person or vessel in danger, or to swim. A person leaving the boat by accident or to swim shall be back on board before the boat continues in the race.

One thing is for sure. These guys will have a hell of a climb to make when they tack.....

Penalty Done?

2012-09-23T20:04:00.001+02:00

At an event this summer I was involved in a protest where a boat claimed she was interfered with, by another boat which was taking a penalty.

These are the facts found:
In race 4 on Tuesday close to the finish line, three Centaurs were involved in an incident
Boat A (Blue) on starboard approached the line on a close hauled course. Boat B (Purple) was on a collision course, also close hauled, but sailing on port tack. Boat B thought she could pass boat A in front. Boat A bore off behind Boat B and hailed protest and put up a red flag. She continued saying "You have to do a turn". The incident was observed by boat C (Red) approaching the finish also.

Boat B bore off, gybed and tacked almost immediately, ending up sailing close hauled on port again. Boat C (Red), also sailing on port tack, established an overlap while boat B was finishing her tack.

Both boats sailed a boat length in overlap and then Boat B started luffing to fetch the finish mark. Boat C hailed protest and put up a flag. She luffed also and the distance between the boats remained the same throughout the incident, approximately 2 meters. Both boats luffed to head to wind and crossed the finish line. After passing the mark boat B bore off and sailed clear, shortly followed by boat C.

Boat C handed in a protest form claiming an infringement of rule 21.2
And the diagram the PC made based on these facts:

What should the PC decide?

The PC made the following observations;
First, not taking a penalty or only half a penalty is in itself not breaking a rule.
The question is; does a boat get its rights back after having done only half the penalty turns? The Blue boat could have continued its turns without interfering with the Red boat. Only because she luffed she interfered. But was she then any longer a boat taking a penalty?

Second; if rights are returned to Blue as leeward boat, she broke no rule against Red. And the protest was about rule 21.2……. The only rule Blue broke was against Purple, rule 10, not keeping clear as port tack boat. Blue only did not take a two turn penalty to exonerate herself.
In addition Blue claimed in the hearing that Purple only asked for one turn and she did that. And, she didn't break any rules against Red.

Please give me your opinion as to what the PC should decide.
J.

The (less) strange case of the (non)competitor

2012-09-02T10:26:00.000+02:00

In response to my post about the (non) competitor, I received a mail from Lynne in Canada. She's a member of the appeal board and they had a similar case. One that provides some insight in how to deal with this issue. I've asked and been given permission to publish it:

Racing Rules of Sailing
New Case - Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules

A submission from the Canadian Yachting Association

Purpose or Objective
To provide a Case clarifying when a boat is participating in a race.

Proposal
CASE XXX
Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules
Rule 3, Acceptance of the Rules
Rule 4, Decision to Race
Part 2, Preamble
Rule 69, Allegations of Gross Misconduct
Rule 75, Entering a Race

A boat that meets the requirements for entry in a race, and sails in or near the racing area, and participates in a race is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes or retires from the race. The Racing Rules of Sailing apply to such boats. She does not have the option to claim that that the Racing Rules do not apply to her.
The boat’s sole responsibility to decide to participate in a race does not include the right to choose whether or not to be governed by the rules once she participates in the race.
By participating in a race, competitors are governed by the Racing Rules of Sailing, including action by a protest committee under Rule 69.
A boat that breaks the rules over a protracted period commits a gross breach of the rules and shows bad manners and bad sportsmanship.

Summary of the Facts:
During three sailing seasons at her yacht club’s weekly races, boat A entered the series, started and sailed in the races for a fleet of which she was not a member, rather than starting with her own fleet five minutes later. In the third season, two protests were filed against A under the Racing Rules of Sailing, Part 2. The protest committee found in both cases that A had been racing, and disqualified her for breaking rules of Part 2. Later that year, there was a further written complaint against A’s skipper alleging abusive behaviour during other races in which she sailed in the wrong fleet. The protest committee conducted a hearing under Rule 69 against A’s skipper, alleging that by his actions constituted a gross breach of the rules, good manners, and sportsmanship. It found that the competitor had committed a gross breach of the rules, and had also shown bad manners and bad sportsmanship, all over a protracted period. It upheld the allegations under rule 69. It imposed penalties to the competitor and to the boat, disqualifying the boat from the races in question and excluding the competitor from all competition for which the yacht club is the Organising Authority, for a period of two years.

The competitor appealed using Rule 70.1 of the Racing Rules of Sailing. The competitor argued that A was observing the government right-of-way rules, as was his right. He further argued that he had informed the club that he was no longer racing at the club, and therefore, he had no undertaking to observe the Racing Rules of Sailing. Specifically, he was not obligated under, rule 3(a) to be governed by the rules or by 3(b) to accept the penalties imposed and any other action taken under the rules. He further objected to the jurisdiction of the protest committee that convened the Rule 69 hearing. He argued that they had ignored rule 4, which made the responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race or to continue racing hers alone. He appealed the findings of the Rule 69 hearing as outside of the Protest Committee’s jurisdiction, asking the Appeals Committee to find the decision to be null and void and ultra vires.

Decision
A’s actions directly contradict the assertion that she was not racing under the Racing Rules of Sailing. The boat took the decision under rule 4 to participate in the race, as evidenced by her own actions. Evidence of her participation under rule 3 is that she sailed in or near the racing area, she started races, often finished races, and claimed her rights under the racing rules when she met other boats competing in the races. A was racing from her preparatory signal until she finished or retired from each race. Her actions demonstrated that she was not a cruising yacht or a spectator boat who sailed into the racing area.

There is no contradiction between rule 4 which gives the responsibility for a boat’s decision to participate in a race to the boat alone, and rule 3. The decision is observed through the boat’s actions. Participation in a race is evident by the boat’s actions, such as by starting races, sailing the course, rounding the marks, or finishing. Boats racing under the rules are entitled to proceed under the assumption that other boats that are participating in the race are also observing the Racing Rules of Sailing. The responsibility allotted in rule 4 is not a choice whether or not to observe the Racing Rules of Sailing.

The Racing Rules of Sailing did apply to Boat A.

Since the skipper of A had participated in the race under rule 3, he was a competitor in the sport of sailing. He was, therefore, governed by a body of rules that he was expected to follow and enforce under the Basic Principle, sportsmanship and the rules and Rule 69. The protest committee did have the authority to convene the hearing under rule 69. The competitor’s actions described in the written complaint did constitute a gross breach of good manners and sportsmanship. The competitor was properly found to be in breach of Rule 69. The competitor was subject to penalty under rule 69. Rule 3(b) did, therefore obligate the competitor to accept the penalties imposed and other action taken under the rules, subject to the appeal process which he used

The appeal is dismissed. The protest committee did have the authority under the Racing Rules of Sailing to convene this hearing and to impose an appropriate penalty on the competitor. The decision of the protest committee and the penalties imposed are upheld.

Current Position
None.

Reason
This Case provides a clear interpretation that a boat that participates in a race has agreed to be governed by the rules. The case clarifies that there is no contradiction between rules 4 and 3: A boat has made her sole decision to participate in a race once she does participate in the race. With that participation, she has agreed to be governed by the rules and accept any penalties imposed under the rules. A boat that participates in the race may not claim that she has decided not to participate, and that she is not governed by the rules. The case also confirms that the protest committee’s jurisdiction includes persons who participate in races but claim that they are not competitors under Sportsmanship and the Rules. They are subject to protest, to action under rule 69, and to any penalties imposed under the rules.

The appeals committee has submitted this particular appeal to ISAF for inclusion in the Casebook. It will be on the agenda in this year's November conference.

LTW Readers Q&A (62): Backwards

2012-09-01T09:22:00.000+02:00

From BerkCan in Greece:

Yesterday while training we had a situation during pre-start and we had doubts about it so I thought best thing to do is to ask you.

Here is the situation:

During pre-start two boats wait head to wind, one is slightly ahead and overlapped. Then the one which is slightly ahead (Yellow) starts to go backward by backing her sails and the other boat (Blue) bears away in order to pass ahead of the backing up boat.

Our question is: What if Blue decides to bear away more and goes on to Yellow boat? What should Yellow do in that case?

If she continues to back up her sails and go backward she could be interpreted as continuing her maneuver and doing nothing to avoid Blue. But on the other hand the best thing Yellow could do to avoid Blue is to continue going backward.

Regards,

BerkCan

It is a bit like a port boat passing in front of a starboard boat. At a certain point the best thing the port boat can do is continue to sail straight on. Any other maneuver will result in contact....

In the situation you describe the Yellow boat is keep clear boat and Blue is right-of-way.
If Yellow keeps clear while Blue stays stationary, she fulfills her obligation.

If Blue changes course she is subject to 16.1 and must give Yellow room to keep clear. I agree with you, that would be to continue backwards as best as she can. Yellow might also have to change course a little to get her bow away from Blue by steering her stern to the left (looking backward).
If she does this and there’s contact, I would penalize Blue for not giving room to keep clear. If there’s no contact, a green flag would be appropriate.With contact Blue has not give enough room and should be penalized.
If Yellow stops pushing her sail, slows down sailing backwards and perhaps does not try to change course a little and there is contact, I would penalize her..

Thanks for reading LTW

The strange case of the (non)competitor

2012-08-30T12:48:00.000+02:00

During a multi-class event locally, the PC came across a very strange case. I've changed names, numbers and classes, but left the facts as found. This kind of case is probably unique, but if you've run across anything similar, leave a comment.

A protest was delivered to the Race Office by a young sailor. Her Optimist was involved in an incident at a leeward mark where she capsized and lost several places. The PC scheduled and heard the protest in absence of the other party. It was a boat in a different class - a Contender.
Long story short; the Contender had broken rule 12, 18.2(b) and 14 and was disqualified.

After half an hour, between other hearings, the RC-person responsible for scoring, came into the protest room and told the panel that the Contender in the protest was not on her finish list nor on the starting list.As far a she was concerned, it hadn't competed!

After verifying the boat had entered the event - which was the case - the panel started to doubt if the Optimist perhaps had noted the wrong sail number?

After some deliberations a phone call was made to the Contender sailor and he confirmed that he was involved in the incident at the leeward mark. He was currently on his way home because the rest of the event he didn't have time to sail.

How come he wasn't on the starting- nor on the finish list?

The sailor answered that he had some problems with his boat after having sailed to the starting area and had returned ashore to do some repairs. He then sailed into the course following the rest and starting rounding marks. He however did not finish because he wanted to get his boat out before the rest came ashore.

The panel now faced the following question(s):

Was the Contender a competitor subject to the rules?
Was the Contender racing ?
What penalty - if any - would be appropriate?

Continued after the break;

If you look at the preamble of part two, you find that the Contender was subject to the rules from the moment it starting sailing toward the starting area until it returned ashore after racing.
It also had broken several other rules - not in the least rule 28.1 - by not starting.

But was it a boat complying with the definition of racing?

If it was not, the Contender still has broken rule 23.1 and should be penalized with a DSQ in the previous race.

If it was racing, had it deliberately broken rule 28.1 - by not starting and starting to sailing the course, at the least a rule 2 infringement, possible a gross breach of a rule, which might be leading to a rule 69 hearing?

So the panel had a look at the definition: racing

A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment.

If a boat is sailing toward the line, but still on the course side when her preparatory signal is given, she's racing. Does the distance - how far away she might be - play a role?

If a boat is over the line early (OCS) and does not return, she's still racing - so starting is not a criteria. If the sailing instructions state that a boat has four minutes to start, but after that time she hasn't even crossed the line once, is she still racing? An OCS boat is.....

The boat retired, took her penalty, so, can she still be disqualified?

And what about rule 2? Knowingly sailing the course while not having started is deliberate, is it not?

The panel in the end decided to penalize the Contender with a DNE for that race. They were of the opinion that the boat was racing. Also that the boat deliberately broke rule 28.1, and thereby did not comply with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play, which is a rule 2 infringement. They did not start a rule 69 investigation....

I'll await your comments.
J.

(pillow)Case of the week (30/12) - 2

2012-07-23T18:59:00.000+02:00

(This is an installment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. All cases are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The cases are copied from the Casebook, only the comments are written by me.)

Case 2

Rule 12, On the Same Tack, Not Overlapped
Rule 14, Avoiding Contact
Rule 15, Acquiring Right of Way
Rule 18.2(a), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room
Rule 18.2(b), Mark-Room: Giving Mark-Room

If the first of two boats to reach the zone is clear astern when she reaches it and if later the boats are overlapped when the other boat reaches the zone, rule 18.2(a), and not rule 18.2(b), applies. Rule 18.2(a) applies only while boats are overlapped and at least one of them is in the zone.

Summary of the Facts

A and B were both on port tack, reaching to a mark to be left to starboard. The wind was light. At position 1, when A came abreast of the mark she was clear ahead of B but four-and-a-half hull lengths from the mark. B, who had just reached the zone, was three lengths from the mark. Between positions 1 and 2 A gybed and headed to the mark, becoming overlapped outside B. Between positions 2 and 3, after B had gybed and turned towards the next mark, she became clear ahead of A. When B first became clear ahead of A there was about one-half of a hull length of open water between the boats. A few seconds after B became clear ahead, A, who was moving faster, struck B on the transom. There was no damage or injury. A protested B under rule 18.2(b). B protested A under rule 12. A was disqualified and she appealed.

Decision

A apparently believed that the second sentence of rule 18.2(b) applied when the two boats were at position 1 and that B, then being clear astern, was obliged to give A mark-room. As that sentence states, it applies only if a boat was clear ahead when she reached the zone. At position 1, B had reached the zone, but A was well outside it. Moreover, the first sentence of rule 18.2(b) never applied because the boats were not overlapped when B, the first of them to reach the zone, did so. However, while the boats were overlapped, rule 18.2(a) did apply, and it required A to give mark-room to B. During that time B had to keep clear of A, first under rule 10 and later (after she gybed) under rule 11.

After B gybed she pulled clear ahead of A. At that moment rules 18.2(a) and 11 ceased to apply and rules 12 and 15 began to apply. Rule 15 required B initially to give A room to keep clear, and B did so because it would have been easy for A to keep clear by promptly bearing off slightly to avoid B’s transom after B became clear ahead. When A hit B’s transom, she obviously was not keeping clear of B, and so it was proper to disqualify A for breaking rule 12. A also broke rule 14 because it was
possible for her to bear off slightly and avoid the contact with B.

After it became clear that A was not going to keep clear of B, it was probably not possible for B to avoid the contact. However, even if B could have avoided the contact, she could not have been penalized under rule 14 because she was the right-of-way boat and the contact did not cause damage or injury.

The appeal is dismissed, the protest committee’s decision is upheld, and A remains disqualified for breaking rules 12 and 14.

USSA 1962/87

I must confess that this Case is something that I have learned myself only recently. I never had a case involving the clear ahead boat not reaching the zone first before. Only after reading the sentences of rule 18 in the book again and again, I came to the same conclusion.

It is easy to overlook these first cases in the book as being too obvious. This one however is pretty important, although it might be some time before you come across a similar situation in the protest room.

We are almost at the 'end' of our series... One more to go.

Umpire Call; Returning?

2012-07-22T07:00:00.001+02:00

Both Blue and Yellow are over early. Due to not enough people on the starting vessel the RC is a little late in calling them back. Yellow and Blue sail back to the starting line to start. This is what happens:

In position 3 the Blue boat on Port, forces Yellow on Starboard to gybe. The boats have no contact but it is very close. Blue protests in position 4.
You are the Umpire in the green rib. (and you are alone). What is your decision?

(pillow)Case of the week (29/12) - 03

2012-07-16T11:03:00.000+02:00

(This is an instalment in a series of blogposts about the ISAF Case book 2009-2012 with amendments for 2011. All cases are official interpretations by the ISAF committees on how the Racing Rules of Sailing should be used or interpreted. The cases are copied from the Casebook, only the comments are written by me.)

Case 3

Rule 19.2(a), Room to Pass an Obstruction: Giving Room at an Obstruction
Rule 20.1, Room to Tack at an Obstruction: Hailing and Responding
Rule 64.1(c), Decisions: Penalties and Exoneration

A leeward port-tack boat, hailing for room to tack when faced with an oncoming starboard-tack boat, an obstruction, is not required to anticipate that the windward boat will fail to comply with her obligation to tack promptly or otherwise provide room.

Summary of the Facts

S hailed PL as the two dinghies approached each other on collision courses. PL then twice hailed ‘Room to tack’, but PW did not respond. PL, now unable to keep clear of S, hailed a third time, and PW then began to tack. At that moment, S, which was then within three feet (1 m) of PL, had to bear away sharply to avoid a collision. PW retired and S protested PL under rule 10. The protest committee disqualified PL observing that, not having had a timely response from PW, she should have used her right to luff and forced PW to tack.

PL appealed, claiming that:

she had no right to force PW onto the opposite tack;
even with both of them head to wind, S would still have had to change course to avoid a collision; and
she had foreseen the development and had hailed PW in ample time.

Decision

PL’s appeal is upheld. PL is to be reinstated. Because S was an obstruction to PL and PW, PL was entitled to choose between tacking and bearing away (see rule 19.2(a)). Having decided to tack and having hailed for room to do so three times, PL was entitled by rule 20.1 to expect that PW would respond and give her room to tack. She was not obliged to anticipate PW’s failure to comply with rule 20.1. PL broke rule 10, but she is exonerated as the innocent victim of another boat’s breach of a rule, under the provisions of rule 64.1(c).

RYA 1962/37

We are almost at the ‘beginning’ of our Casebook. The Cases there, are all dealing with the most fundamental principles. In this particular case the right of the right-of-way boat to choose, and – if the keep clear boat does not do what it is suppose to do – the exoneration for breaking a rule.

But there’s another principle here;

Although most experienced regatta sailors know beforehand what is most likely going to happen, the rules don’t have any provisions or obligations that you have to anticipate. The rules deal in facts, not in intentions. In almost all incidents a boat has to act on the factual rights and obligations.
Am I keep clear boat?
Am I right of way boat?
And from the answers to those questions you know what you can or cannot do.

The trouble is that in any given situation the facts can change very quickly by what the boats do. That leads to ‘getting ahead’ of what the facts will become and with that to rights and obligations that are not (yet) established.

A port tacking boat will become a starboard right of way boat. But until it has completed its tack, it is still a keep clear boat. And until that time any (not tacking) boat does not have to respond, although its crew already knows that moment will come. If the tacking boat already acts as if she’s right of way boat, because that will happen in a second or two, it most likely will break rule 13.

The right-of-way boat in Case 3 does not have to anticipate that the keep clear boat will not act according to the rules – when she’s hailed three times.

Sneekweek 2012; Invitation to sailors II

2012-07-14T10:59:00.001+02:00

In a previous post I mentioned the Sneekweek: Invitation Sneekweek for Sailors
The Organizing Authority has organized a couple of packages for International Sailors to make it easier (and cheaper) to come; From the leaflets:

Invitation
Some time ago the Royal Yacht Club Sneek sent you an invitation to join us for Sneekweek. We
understand that it may not be easy for you to arrange accommodation and the like, and that is
why we have done it for you. Below please find information on the gold and silver packages put
together especially for Sneekweek.

Special offer!
The Royal Yacht Club Sneek cordially invites you to take part in Sneekweek. To make participation
even more attractive, you are given the choice between two special offers: the Gold and Silver
packages.

The Royal Yacht Club Sneek (KWS) has organized this special event for the past 77 years. It takes
place in the north of the Netherlands, in the province of Friesland. This year, the event will be
held from 4 through 9 August. The Sneekweek is Europe’s largest inshore sailing regatta. The most
important thing for many people, however, is the fun and hugely enjoyable atmosphere for which we
are famous!
Sailors compete in 40 different classes. Vaurien, Yngling, Optimist, Finn, 2.4mR, Laser and Splash among others offer loyal fleets that keep coming back for more. Sneekweek easily compares to Travemünder Woche or Kiel Week, except it is much more personal.

More information:
Invitation Sneekweek 2012 & Leaflet Sneekweek 2012

Windlimits?

2012-07-10T20:46:00.001+02:00

Sailing a kite board is not like sailing a sailboat. But you already figured that out. Didn't you?

One of the basic differences is in how they regulate there 'sail' in heavy wind conditions. On a sailboat you start trimming. More tension on the back stay. Flattening reef. Leeward with the traveler. Or even reefing the mainsail and changing the jib.

Kite boarders don't have those options. Sure you can - to a certain extend - de-power your kite by letting go of the handle bar. But the size of the kite stays the same.....

Or does it?

No, it does not. Any skilled kite boarder has a range of kites varying from 6 to 18 m2. Eight or seven of them. He or she picks the kite most suitable for the wind conditions and their own mass. Heavier, stronger riders, choose bigger kites. Smaller people need less square footage and choose a smaller size. And that's also how they cope with stronger winds. More wind equals smaller kites.

The International Kiteboard Class Rules however, have a limit on the number of kites you can use for an event. For a sailboat I can understand that you want to limit the number of sails - sound economical issues are to be considered. But to do the same for kiteboarders is like tying a knot in your sheet. You are not allowed to trim your main out any further. No matter how hard the wind is blowing. You must sail with a tight sheet.

Riders must judge the wind conditions for an event - look at the forecasts and choose three sizes they want to use. Those three kites are registered at the beginning and only those three they are allowed to use.

We all know how predictable weather can be. Those weather guys never get it wrong.
So that's fair, no?

Unless.

You're on the north German shore of the North sea. One day it is a balmy 23 degrees, with sunshine and low 8 to 14 knot breeze. The next day it's blowing your socks off, with rain and 42 knots wind.
But those weather guys saw that coming weeks ahead.....

There's wind, let's go kiting.

For more pictures:VW Beetle PKRA Germany SPO day 3

The amazing thing is that kiteboarder go sailing in those conditions... provided they can use their smaller kites. They love it. No wave to high, no breeze to strong. They just go faster.... and higher.....

The Race Committees for next year's World Cup events have a surprise coming. When every other class stays ashore because the wind is too strong.... kiteboarders will want to go racing!

Unless they are forced in using a limited number of kites...... or even only one.

J.

(pillow)Case of the week (28/12) - 04

2012-07-09T20:32:00.000+02:00

Case 4

(Case 5 has been withdrawn for revision during 2009)
Rule 49, Crew Position
Rule 50.3(a), Setting and Sheeting Sails: Use of Outriggers

A competitor may hold a sheet outboard.

Question
Is it permissible for a competitor to hold the sheet of a headsail or spinnaker outboard?
Answer
Rule 50.3(a) prohibits the use of an outrigger and defines it to be a fitting or other device. A competitor is neither a fitting nor a device. It is therefore permissible for a competitor to hold a sheet outboard, provided that rule 49 is complied with.
RYA 1962/41

For those of you who are wondering about rule 49:
49 CREW POSITION
49.1 Competitors shall use no device designed to position their bodies outboard, other than hiking straps and stiffeners worn under the thighs.

49.2 When lifelines are required by the class rules or the sailing instructions they shall be taut, and competitors shall not position any part of their torsos outside them, except briefly to perform a necessary task.
On boats equipped with upper and lower lifelines of wire, a competitor sitting on the deck facing outboard with his waist inside the lower lifeline may have the upper part of his body outside the upper lifeline.
When holding a sheet outboard your torso will be most likely outside the lifelines on a yacht that is equipped with those. Therefore you can only do it briefly to perform a necessary task. Taking the spinnaker pole down just before lowering and then a crewmember holds the sheet outboard to keep the spinnaker drawing, complies with rule 49 and with rule 50.3(a). If you do the same for half a leg – provided you are that strong – it breaks rule 49 and the boat can be protested and DSQ-ed.
And since it is in part 4 of the RRS – no alternative penalty can be taken to exonerate this infringement.
A sheet is not a device designed to position a crew’s body outboard, so you even comply with rule 49.1 by using that same spinnaker sheet as support to prevent you from falling in the water. But, like stated, only briefly!