Powered by
WIND


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Mike, 
    What is a flighted race? I have never heard that expression. This may be a case of terminology creep. Which sort of illustrates my point.

    The only mentions of flight in RRS are in MR and in TR. The word means different things in each discipline. In MR flight 1 is  a number of races that can be sailed without any changeovers, so they can start in an uninterrupted sequence (6 boats= a flight is 3 races). In MR, a flight is a number of (hopefully)à equalised boats into which can be trabnsferred. In this case a  flight is 4, 6 or 8 boats (depending on the TR discipline)
    In fleet racing the race documents when there is a qualifying series for a class, the entries in that class are divided into fleets, often Blue and Yellow.
    In that case Race 1, of the QF is only scored when both fleets have been scored. So race 1 of the QF is the amalgamated score of QF Race 1, Blue Fleet, and QF Race 1 Yellow Fleet.
    There is an issue with Sailwave, and possibly other scoring systems, because they use alternative terminologies. Not a problem until there is a request for redress! It we would be helpful if we all used the same terms for the same thing.
    Today 20:30
  • History of Obligation to Retire or take a penalty

    Pre 1961
    Prior to the 1961 rewrite combining the NAYRU an IYRU rules:
    • The IYRU rules did not address an obligation to retire on breach of a rule in any way.
    • The NAYRU Rules, in Appendix 1  The Proprieties of Yacht Racing said

    The interests of the sport will be best served by voluntary withdrawal as soon as it becomes clear to a yacht that she has violated a rule …

    1961 Rules
    In the 1961 rules, Rule  33 provided

    33 – Retiring from Race

    As soon as a yacht, while racing realises that she has infringed a racing rule or a sailing instruction she should retire immediately;  but, if she persists in racing other yachts shall continue to accord her such rights as she may have under these rules.

    This rule did not place an enforceable obligation on the infringing yacht, but did oblige other yachts to keep giving her rights.

    Fair sailing was dealt with by Rule 49, as follows.

    49 – Fair Sailing

    A yacht shall attempt to win a race only by fair sailing and superior speed and skill.  However a yacht may be disqualified under this rule only in the case of a clear-cut violation of the above principles and only if no other rule applies 


    1973 Rules
    In 1973, Rule 33 was changed to make retirement  when a boat 'realises she has infringed a racing rule' an obligation, as follows

    33 – Retiring from Race

    A yacht which realises she has infringed a racing rule or a sailing instruction is under an obligation to retire promptly, but when she persists in racing, other yachts shall continue to accord her such rights as she may have under the rules of Part IV.

    It might be thought that this back-handed wording about 'obligation', instead of a straightforward 'shall' was intended to still focus the rule on the requirement of other yachts to continue to accord her her rights.

    Rule 49 was unchanged.

    1977 Rules
    Turns and Scoring Penalties were introduced as ‘Alternative Penalties’ in Appendix 3 in the 1977 rules.

    Rule 33 was accordingly amended to read as follows

    33  Rule Infringement

    33.1 ACCEPTING PENALTY
     A yacht which realises she has infringed a racing rule or a sailing instruction is under an obligation either to retire promptly or to exonerate herself by accepting an alternative penalty when so prescribed in the sailing instructions, but when she does not retire or exonerate herself and persists in racing, other yachts shall continue to accord her such rights as she may have under the rules of Part IV. 

    Rule 49 was deleted and a new section ‘Fundamental Rule’ containing one, unnumbered rule substantially the same as the old Rule 49, as follows was inserted immediately after the title page and before Definitions, 

    Fair Sailing

    A yacht shall participate in a race or series of races in an event only by fair sailing, superior speed and skill, and, except in team races, by individual effort.  However, a yacht may be disqualified under this rule only in the case of a clear-cut violation of the above principles and only when no other rule applies.

    Comment:  While this rule does not use the word 'principle', it enumerates ‘principles’ as follows:

    ●       Fair sailing,
    ●       Superior speed and skill;  and
    ●       Individual effort.

    1985 Rules

    Rule 33.1 Accepting Penalty 

    Remained unchanged

    Fair Sailing rule

    Was now accompanied by two other Fundamental Rules:

    • Fundamental Rule A Rendering Assistance (corresponding to present RRS 1), and
    • Fundamental Rule B Responsibility of a Yacht (corresponding to present RRS 3).

    Fair Sailing became Fundamental Rule C.

    1988 Rules

    Fundamental Rule Fair Sailing was expanded by specific reference to 'recognised principles of fair play and sportsmanship' as follows
     
    C. Fair Sailing

    A yacht, her owner and crew shall compete only by sailing, using their speed and skill, and, except in team racing by individual effort, in compliance with the rules and in accordance with recognised principles of fair play and sportsmanship.  A yacht may be penalised under this rules only in the case of a clear-cut violation of the above principles and only when no other rule applies … 

    The Accepting Penalty part of what had been Rule 33.1 now became Fundamental Rule D Accepting Penalties as follows
     
    D. Accepting Penalties

    A yacht that realises she has infringed a rule shall either retiree promptly or accept an alternative penalty when so prescribed in the sailing instructions. 

    The ‘continue to accord rights’ part of rule 33 was stated as a new rule 34 as shown below.

    34  Maintaining Rights

    When a yacht that may have infringed a rule does not retire or exonerate herself other yachts shall continue to accord her such reighs as she has under the rules of Part IV. 

    Summary Immediately Prior to the 1995 Rewrite

    Fundamental Rule C Fair Sailing required yachts to compete in accordance with recognised principles of fair play and spoortsmahship without those principles being stated in the rules.

    Fundamental Rule D Accepting Penalties provided an express obligation on a yacht that realises she has infringed a rule to either retire promptly or accept an alternative penalty.

    Note:  this rule, from it's inception has been conditional on the yacht realising, that is, knowing, that she has broken a rule.

    Fundamental Rule C Fair Sailing, last sentence provided that the Fair Sailing Rule could not be used to penalise a boat if any other rule applied, that is to say that the Fair Sailing rule could not be used to penalise a boat for not taking a penalty.  However, this had little significance because, unlike the present RRS 2, the penalty for breaking the Fair Sailing Rule was no different from the penalty for breaking any other rule.
     
    1995 Rewrite of the Rules (1997 Rules)

    The Fair Sailing rule now became:
     
    2 FAIR SAILING

    A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated. A disqualification under this rule shall not be excluded from the boat's series score. 

    The Accepting Penalties rule was now represented by a boxed ‘homily’ in the Introduction as follows

    SPORTSMANSHIP AND THE RULES
    Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce.  A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty or retire 

      
    Comments:

    Fair Sailing Rule
    1. No longer refers to ‘sailing’, ‘speed and skill’, ‘individual effort’ or ‘in compliance with the rules’.
    2. No longer refers to ‘sailing’, ‘speed and skill’ or ‘individual effort’ as principles.
    3. This leaves only one ‘fundamental principle’ stated in the ‘homily’, when competitors break a rule they will promptly take a penalty or retire.
    4. Restriction only when no other rule applies deleted.
    5. Adds that penalty for breaking this rule is DNE.

    Accepting Penalties Rule
    1. Moved from Fundamental Rules, into the Introduction under the heading Sportsmanship and the Rules, but remains a rule because Introduction is defined as part of the rules
    2. Now expressed as a ‘fundamental principle of sportsmanship’
    3. Omits the mental element ‘realises’.
    4. Also called up into the numbered rules by rule 2 which refers to ‘recognised principles of sportsmanship and fair play’.

    Comment.  Elvstrom explains this restructuring as intended to enable the choice of either rule 2 or rule 69 for dealing with failure to take a penalty. 

    I'll try to continue this later.
    Today 13:57
  • 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.
    Today 12:51
  • I agree with Ben's deduction. If you reduce the RC down to one person, and that person is a parent of a child, then all information and records are nullified as being a "report" from a support-person with a COI.  

    That doesn't seem to be the point of the rule and I submit that it's an unworkable outcome. 

    Also. I don't see this parent acting in their capacity as a "support person" to their child as they stand on the shore tagging kids in/out of the water as a member of the RC and watching for PFDs for all their safety.  

    Many of us wear many hats. 

    •  For many years, I was simultaneously the RC Chair and a competitor (with a COI) in the races for which I was chair. 
    •  For the previous 10 yrs, in each and every race in which I competed (except for North American Champs), I've been a competitor with a COI and simultaneously a one-person Technical Committee (as Fleet Measurer I was the TC by the Bylaws of our local fleet and the J105 Class ByLaws). 

    I saw the information I generated in those capacities as the information and record of the RC/TC, and not a report to myself from a person/competitor with a COI.  

    • Put that same parent on the signal boat calling the line.  If they call a boat (not their child) OCS, are we calling that a report from a support-person with a COI? or,
    • Put them on the signal boat and they see/log a boat touched the stem offset buoy and the RC protests that boat, are we calling that a report from a support-person with a COI?, or 
    • Put them on the mark-boat and they log a boat missing the offset mark and they are scored NSC ... are we calling that a report from a support-person with a COI?

    I'd submit ... no we are not. Those are classified as the RC's "own observations and records" (see RRS 90.3(c)).

    Also note that RRS 60.4(b)(3) applies to "committee" not just "race committee". It has to work for tech comms as well.

    For instance, if I received a report as the TC/Measurer from a competitor that a boat is breaking a class rule, I would not use the information in that report as the basis of a TC protest. I would investigate the issue myself and generate the TC's "own observation and record" and decide how to proceed.

    Here again, I want to underline, the bylaws of both the J105 class and our local fleet require that the Fleet Measurer be a member of the J105 class and member of the fleet.  The fleet bylaws make the Measurer the TechComm. This is true for many of the OD classes out there.  Those TC's/Measurers are all persons with competitor COI.

    Therefore, we must be able to distinguish between a committee's self-generated observations/information/record, by people acting as a member of that committee, and reports received from outside-persons. 

    I think the analogy here is if another parent was out in a rib (not a volunteer) and gave a report to the this same RC-parent ... then that would be definitely invalid. .. as based on a report from a person with a COI. 
    Today 12:24
  • Samuel Clemens: "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between "lightning" and "lightning-bug."
    Yesterday 17:55

Forums Leader Board

This Month

1 Michael Moradzadeh 3.6K
2 John Allan 3.05K
3 Jim Champ 2.15K
4 Michael Butterfield 2.05K
5 Benjamin Harding 2.05K
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more