• Question of terminology when all boats do not race together
  13 Comments
  Gordon Davies Wed 14:03
• A keen volunteer with a conflict of interest
  46 Comments
  Benjamin Harding Tue 11:09
• Should "Basic Principles" be added to RRS 4 & 5?
  7 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Mon 13:40
• Judges walking the Dock
  14 Comments
  Robert Stewart Mon 04:13
• Language language language
  19 Comments
  Michael Moradzadeh 25-Dec-06 06:09

• Why is the "red flag" needed?
  Thank you Mike and John for highlighting the RYA "Advisory Meeting" option and for providing a link to the document. Arbitration is great addition to the RRS but the RYA's approach makes the process even more accessible which is I think what we are all seeking for our club events and those where we are not "playing for sheep stations" [Australian idiom].
  
  And thank you all for attending our Christmas party.
  
  I will be sending this document to our Sailing Committee as a Christmas present. I hope they appreciate the thought that has gone in to it. At least it's not a pair of socks or a tie!
  David Taylor Today 01:02
• Question of terminology when all boats do not race together
  Thank you for your reply born of direct experience. You were in a hole from which no amount of digging would have got you out. If it weren't for the weather running sailboat races would be a doddle, but it's the weather that makes it interesting. Long ago I ran a national championship with 6 races (one scheduled per day – those were the days) and a four race minimum. We got the required four in, but only just, and on the final day; nail-biting stuff in a light-wind week at a normally-windy venue. Back then the concept of event sponsors, let alone personal ones, was pretty alien, limited to whether we could get the club's brewery to subsidise the bar, so no pressure. 
  
  It raises another question: if the minimum can be set at one, the part of the sentence in RRS A1 – 'and the number required to be scored to constitute a series' becomes inessential. The RRS should therefore be amended to make this requirement a separate, optional sentence. Nevertheless, deciding a multi-race event, let alone a championship, on the basis of one race makes the whole event a farce. Whereas at the Olympics......oh wait.... 
  Nicolas Livingstone Yesterday 11:36
• A keen volunteer with a conflict of interest
  I think the spirit of the RYA reply, that the volunteer is only acting as part of the RC when doing something they have been authorised/delegated to, is fundamentally sound. However it leaves a glaring hole. Supposing a competitor is significantly disadvantaged by someone doing an RC function they have not been authorised to do?
  Jim Champ Fri 23:35
• Judges walking the Dock
  Tim the "sort it out on the water" is emblematic of the 2-boat centric mindset which is misplaced in fleet racing.  It's a foundation of that old article I wrote. 
  
  When a boat breaks a rule for which they are not exonerated (and then do not take a penalty) they gain an incalculable advantage against all other boats in the fleet.  Some are close, some might be on the other side of the course, and it's impossible for anyone to calculate what those advantages are.  
  
  The idea that 2 boats can "work it out on the water" reduces the effect of a boat's rule-breach to only the other boat that is referred-to in that rule ... as if this was a one-on-one match race and no other boats existed.  
  
  THAT is what I try to get-through first when this topic comes up with individual racers.  When we compete in fleet racing, we are all OTW judges for the rest of the fleet.
  Angelo Guarino Fri 13:59
• Should "Basic Principles" be added to RRS 4 & 5?
  I think that there is a difference between 'will promptly take a penalty' and 'are encouraged to'. 
  
  When reading RRS 2 it is essential to refer to WS Case 138, which sets out actions that can be cosidered to be examples of bad sportsmanship or misconduct.
  Gordon Davies Wed 12:51

Forums Leader Board

This Month