• When is an entry an entry?
  12 Comments
  Paul Kimmens Mon 14:17
• Fix for RRS 60.4(a)(2) – Validity
  16 Comments
  Paul Zupan Sun 20:12
• Measurement Basis of Hull Length or Hull Lengths and Associated Rules
  5 Comments
  John Quirk Sat 17:23
• 1.1 Helping Those in Danger and Redress Race Time Adjustment
  11 Comments
  John Quirk 26-Jan-09 18:28
• Appointment of an Investigator
  35 Comments
  John Quirk 26-Jan-04 17:44

• Mark-Room and Room to Pass an Obstruction who wins.
  > OR the converse: that thing is NOT blocking my path, it's NOT an
  > obstruction. A simple truth.
  
  I fear I disagree. An obstruction is an object, that just is. Whether or not its actively obstructing (or impeding would be an alternate word) is a separate issue in standard english. I don't much like the definition, and I think one measured in boat's beam could be better, but I am definitely in favour of the universal definition. Don't want boats having to agree whether its an obstruction or not. 
  
  Which leads us neatly on to the second half. Is the object obstructing, ie should RRS19 be active. We could say obstructing, or impeding, or influencing course. Or we could just use adjacency. Personally I like adjacency, because, again, there's less of a matter of opinion about it. So we could say adjacent to the obstruction, but 'at the obstruction' is simpler language and uses shorter words. A good thing.
  
  -----
  
  Ok so much for that, but lets go back to the scenario. Is there a problem with the rules that needs fixing? Clearly as we've spent some pages pin dancing and logic chopping there is an issue, but I very greatly doubt it comes up often enough, unlike the mirror situation where its a continuing obstruction, that we need a rewrite. A paragraph in the continuing obstruction case should be enough. So what? I don't much like rules turning on and off or overuling another. Complexity again. Both rules active works well enough provided a case provides a bit of clarity. 
  
  It all comes down, for what my opinion is worth, to a single issue. If two boats both have a claim for room to a gap only one will fit through what happens? We have two interpretations, and each has arguments in favour.
  
   One is to say that noone goes through, both boats must go outside both objects. The virtue of this one is that its a simple interpretation and it matches the situation when neither object is a mark. 
  
  The other is to take what I call Angelo's interpretation , that required room includes room to give the other boat room, and if there isn't space to do that RRS19 turns off and only 18 is left. The logic of this is somewhat convoluted which I don't really like, but logically perhaps purer. Also the end result is the one most would see as fairer. ROW gets to round the mark and sail her desired course.Give way must go round or waIt. This is also a better match to the continuing obstruction case.
  
  Personally I wouldn't have a problem with either. 
  
  That leaves us with the capsized boat scenarios. I sailed skiff types, its familiar territory. I can't get excited about this. In practice if someone p****s it in in front of you rules are out of the window, its just a question of trying to find a gap you can get through without hitting anything.
  Jim Champ Today 04:19
• Fix for RRS 60.4(a)(2) – Validity
  Gordon re: "Perhaps RRS.org could designate a suitably qualified person (an international race official, for instance) to present proposals on the Portal. By appending a list of contributors who support the proposal this would effectively become a petition. There seems to be nothing to prevent this use of the Proposal Portal."
  
  FWIW ... I've worked with a few different IJ's and IRO's to submit stuff that is inspired by RRoS threads.
  
  I've also taken items to the USS-RC and tried to get buy-in on ideas for additions/changes to the RRS, Cases and US Appeals.
  
  I know that some members of both the USS-RC and the USS-AppealsComm are frequent readers and occasional contributors to the forum.  I've been told privately that they feel they derive a benefit from seeing how judges, RO's and racers perceive the rules and use that to help them find areas for improvement. 
  
  We can point to a few successes in that regard. 
  
  

  • As I recall, the withdraw of Case 133 was in part due to the discussion here. 
  • Case 132 came out first as a US Appeal .. in part because of this thread started by Boris (unfortunately the drawings are no longer avail in old threads). 
  • Case 148 was a direct result of a thread on RRoS. Forum member and IRO Peter Van Muyden and I worked on a submission to the WS Q&A, which then went to the WS-RC as the Q&A Service needed a rule change or case before they could answer.  Here is a link to what the early draft question to the Q&A looked like. 
  • Ric Crabbe (forum member) flagged this validly issue (subject of this thread) up the chain in late 2023. 
  • ... there are few other examples ..

  
  So ... yea ... that's been happening behind the scenes.  It's usually me finding a "champion" privately ... an IRO/IJ or working through my MNA in the US RulesComm or US-AppealsComm.
  
  If any IJ/IRO would like to take some of these balls a run with them .. please let it be known you would like to be part of it.  
  
  Gordon, if the idea/thread isn't already being driven by a IJ/IRO, or a member of MNA Rules:Appeal Comnitee, would you like to take a first go at it and see how it works?
  Angelo Guarino Wed 14:39
• When is an entry an entry?
  A boat that has not complied with all the requirements of the organising authority is not entered.
  
  It might be useful to have a list of boats who have met some to the requirements but not all (with the list of requirements that have not been met. However, I would argue that this is an 'Incomplete Entry' or 'Not Yet Entered. However, by demonstrating that they intend to participate in the event, under RRS 4(a) they have agreed to accept the rules. This may be of importance if the boat goes racing without completing the entry requirements.
  
  A  boat does not have to enter the event to be subject to the rules. RRS4 (a) specifically states 'By participating or intending to participate in an events', not 'entered'
  We have had incidents here in which boats entered for the club racing series do not enter the club regatta, but come to the starting area, start, sail the course and finish. In other words, they are participating in the event. Therefore, the rules of Part 2 apply between this non-entered boat and other boats participating in the event.
  Gordon Davies Tue 15:43
• Measurement Basis of Hull Length or Hull Lengths and Associated Rules
  I'm not sure that the recent revisions involving hull have been an improvement. We have the situation where bowsprit doesn't count for over the line or hull length, but does count for overlap. And ERS isn't that helpful when it comes to hull length. If you take a modern 18 or other similar craft there's a nominally vertical stem, but a tube projecting from that, with bracing structure both beneath and to each side. Throroughly part of the hull. OK, count it as bow sprit. Maybe. But in other classes you have exactly the same, but a solid construction. Look at these two. Where, in ERS terms is the bow on each, and how on earth do you tell who is over if you are sighting a busy startline? 

  

  Jim Champ Sun 13:25
• 1.1 Helping Those in Danger and Redress Race Time Adjustment
  Very practical method Alan - and 'refreshing' (for the routine ones I have PC experience in, we just did the corection calcs within ourselves - this case a major one) - for ourselves, easy enough to submit to the PC, when national level racing, as we always log all such baseline performance & tracking data from the onset of every race (and event YB Tracker always used etc).
  
  
  John Quirk Sun 00:15

Forums Leader Board

This Month