Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Maybe it is the word change that we disagree on.
    The new rule, let’s call her NoR 1, in itself does not, in my understanding, change RRS 14, 31 or 43 . You can still get a disqualification or exoneration by these rules. The interpretation, application or handling are exactly the same as before.

    J.1.3 (5) demands that such a rule as NoR1 need to be in the Notice of race and not in the sailing instructions. Each competitor can decide before entering if this rule breaks the game for her or not.

    Let’s think about a rule that would not involve the word contact. Like: if a competitor spits in the water the the boat gets 1 point added to her final score. This new rule would only affect the scoring and thus would not change for instance RRS 47.
    Or: each time a competitor tacks between her starting signal and finishing she shall receive a penalty point added to her race score. This rule would heavily influence the way one would race but is not a change to RRS 13.

    We have in fact in many dinghy regattas a safety rule for check out if you go afloat and check in if you are back ashore. If you don’t sign yourself into the list despite being on the water or back from it, then you get a DPI penalty. I personally don’t like the rule because in most NoR you have not a mandatory harbour or times you can be on the water. But the discussions end often in circles around safety and micro-managing competitors. Can you write rules that demand changes in behaviour of the sailors? Everyone does it in some form in their SIs. But it is only a change if you differ the wording, make an addition, delete a part or contradict (c85) an existing rule.

    In RRS 14 it is stated that „A boat shall avoid contact if reasonably possible. (…)“ How is NoR1 „(…)then the yachts involved in the contact receive 1 penalty point added to their result in this race(…)“ an amendment or alteration to the statement of RRS 14? The preface for the 2 rules are quite different. One is telling what competitors shall avoid and the other is a scoring penalty for any contact. A boat can be penalised by both rules or only one of them. They are not logically bound to each other. 
    Today 04:50
  • To resume:
    Blue becomes overlapped 20 cm to leeward of Red - penalty Red
    Blue becomes overlapped 2 cm to leeward  of Red - penalise Blue


    No course change by Blue - no change to decision
    Course change by Blue - Blue must give Red room to keep clear
    Yesterday 14:24
  • John B. and Beau

    John, looks like you are in the Ang-option 2.1 camp then …?

    Green is sailing … (2) inside the MR she is entitled to, to sail [promptly] to the mark on its proper side, because … (1) Green’s corridor reset [at pos 3+] when her MR changed from 18.2(b) to 18.2(a),

    Beau, OP author states late in the thread that Green is not taking a penalty.  My question isn’t if Green can get room “at the mark”, rather “Is Green sailing within the MR she is entitled to at position 4, and why or why-not?” (is it my 1, 2.1, 2.2 above or other explanation?). 
    Yesterday 12:14
  • Paul,

    Recently at an event scoring enquiries were submitted anonymously and claimed to represent a boat.  However, the boat never submitted the scoring enquiry.   Currently the "Confirm User Identity" option applies to a hearing request or crew substitution.  Is it possible to add scoring enquiries to this feature?
  • Thanks John, I think your new version reads OK and is better.

    What I was thinking was something like this:

    @2 Y changes course in an arc up to head to wind.  At each point in the arc there is an additional course change and a new instance of 16.1 is invoked. For each of these course changes she is required by RRS 16.1 Changing Course to give B room to keep clear, and given the distance apart of the boats, she does so.

    Is this an instance transition?:-)

    Thu 21:46
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more