Recent Posts

• Team Race Rapid Response 2019-001 Instructive for Fleet Racing
  1 Comment
  Paul Zupan Yesterday 16:37
• RR 18.2(f)
  5 Comments
  Kerri Hardisty 19-Mar-09 19:36
• To be "Racing" or "Finished Racing", That is the Question ...
  28 Comments
  Angelo Guarino 19-Feb-04 21:06
• Small Exercise for a Winter Weekend
  21 Comments
  Paul Zupan 19-Feb-02 15:26
• Is the Presumption stated in Rule 18.2(e) a Fact or a Conclusion?
  3 Comments
  Myrto Antonopoulou 19-Jan-30 18:24

Recent Comments

• Team Race Rapid Response 2019-001 Instructive for Fleet Racing
  I think Dick Rose correctly pointed out that Rob has swapped B and Y in part of his analysis.  Clearly Rob is describing Y when indicating she turned downwind, such that I certainly understand what he means and didn't even notice it the first time I read it.  Rob assures me he will review his post and correct the mistake.
  Paul Zupan Yesterday 17:50
• RR 18.2(f)
  At position 3, red has gained mark room, but blue is unable to provide it.
  (Drawn a bit tighter than intended.)

  

  Philip Hubbell 19-Mar-10 19:49
• Racing along a continuing obstruction
  Decision of the Sail Canada Appeals Committee:
  
  "The facts found indicate that shallow water did not prevent Renegade from keeping clear of
  Mananan while an overlap existed between them. Therefore, rule 11 applied rather than rule
  19. Renegade broke rule 11 when Mananan could not alter course in either direction without
  making immediate contact with Renegade."
  
  Renegade’s appeal is denied.
  Lynne Beal, Chairman
  Andrew Alberti
  Rick Hatch
  Don Martin
  Warren Nethercote
  Leo Reise
  
  December 27, 2017
  Matt Bounds 19-Mar-09 22:42
• RRS 18 - Part 2 - Mark-Room
  The original comment in the first paragraph below the diagram says "the proper course of neither boat is to tack;" - In the diagram the proper course of both boats is to tack as it is a windward mark.
  
  However at the windward mark it is correct to say that it is not true that "the proper course at the mark for one but not both of them is to tack" and therefore 18.1 (b) does not render the rule not applicable. It is long winded and confusing but correct whereas the shorter paraphrase used above was not correct.
  Paul Hanly 19-Mar-06 03:05
• Is the Presumption stated in Rule 18.2(e) a Fact or a Conclusion?
  Hi, Myrto!
  Here is what WS 2017 Judges Manual says regarding this matter
  "K.22 Onus of Satisfying the Protest Committee
  For protest hearings, the burden of proof is the “balance of probability”, unless 
  a rule specifies a different burden of proof.
  There is one rule, 18.2(e), that permits the protest committee, when there is a 
  reasonable doubt, to presume facts about whether a boat obtained or broke an 
  overlap in time. However, the protest committee must not merely rely on this 
  rule; it must take an active part in trying to resolve the doubt by other means. It 
  should question the parties and witnesses to elicit all available evidence to find 
  facts and to learn what actually happened. Then, if still in doubt, it may use rule 
  18.2(e) to resolve the protest.
  When making its decision, rule 18.2(e) is relevant only when the protest 
  committee is in doubt. In this case, the decision might use such words as: ‘The 
  protest committee is not satisfied that A, astern established an inside overlap 
  before B ahead reached the zone,’ and cite rule 18.2(e). When the protest 
  committee is satisfied by the evidence that A astern failed to obtain an overlap, 
  then the words used might be: ‘A astern failed to establish an inside overlap 
  [etc.],’ and rule 18.2(e) would not be cited in the decision."
  Ekaterina Minakova 19-Mar-02 22:26