Rules Forums

Forum Guidelines

The Racing Rules of Sailing

Posts interpreting or analyzing rules and cases including competitor's questions. 
121 Posts

Rule 18 and Room at the Mark

Questions and posts regarding rule 18 and room at the mark.
29 Posts

Rules 2 and 69

Questions and posts regarding rule 2 and/or 69.
9 Posts

Match and Team Racing Rules

Rules as they apply to match and team racing
16 Posts

Protest Hearing Procedures

Posts regarding protest procedures.
10 Posts

Race Officers

A forum for discussing issues relevant to Race Officers and the administration and running of races.
6 Posts

Training Announcements and Opportunities

Announce training seminars. round tables and exercises for race officials, measurers, judges and umpires.
7 Posts

Event Management System

Questions, comments and suggestions for the Event Management System on RacingRulesofSailing.org.  Please share your questions and comments here so others can learn from the discussion.
15 Posts

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Baptiste Verniest,

    thank you for the accurate and descriptive answer.

  • To answer Mike's last note, there has to be a valid protest and that means the form has to identify 'the incident'. I don't think the 'incident' can be that a boat didn't do her turns properly - it has got to be that she did something that might have broken a rule, such as she was on port and didn't keep clear of your boat on starboard. If that's not there, the protest is invalid and that can't be put right once the protest is put in. Of course a new protest could be put in late and the committee could extend the time 'if there is good reason to do so' but I don't think that failing to describe any incident is a good reason.

    Of course it's not the end of the world if the protest fails, get out and beat the b.......d in the next race!

    David
    Fri 09:50
  • Then there is the possibility that two boats, 'Ahead' and 'Behind'
    are tacking simultaneously, but a third boat overlaps them both
    such that 'Behind' is astern, but not Clear Astern, of 'Ahead'
    (by reverse osmosis) because now they are Overlapped
    Thu 08:03
  • I thought this was about RRS 18.3?

    In the RRS 18.3 is words "rule 18.2"
    Thu 06:54
  • John, first I don't have an issue at all with what you wrote above. I think it's comprehensive and tells the complete story. That said, you and I did go through a redlining exercise a while back in another thread ... removing and pruning FF's that though might add to completeness of the story, were not strictly needed. I've got a devilish leprechaun sitting on my shoulder whispering in my ear saying that FF's 1 and 2 are talking about a separate incident not described in the protest as presented by the OP.

    In that spirit, taking what you wrote and based on OP's initial conditions, could this fly?

    Facts Found
    1. The protesting boat observed what she believed to be a breach of a rule of Part 2.
    2. The protesting boat did not hail 'protest' [and display a red flag[ at the first red flag at the first reasonable opportunity after that incident.
    3. The protestsing boat observed the protestee for some condiderable time after the alleged breach an did not observed the protestee to take a penalty, but not in accordance with rule 44.
    4. The protesting boat then hailed 'protest' [and displayed a red flag]. (Note: This will already be indicated in the validity section, so this is redundant).

    Conclusions
    A. The protest alleging a breach of rule 44 is valid. (Note: This also will already be indicated in the validity section, so this is also redundant).
    B. There is no valid protest in respect of any breach of a Part 2 rule
    C. The protestee's failure to take a proper and timely Two-Turns Penalty broke no rule. It meant only that she failed to take a penalty. Since the a No right-of-way incident was not the incident described in the protest, therefore the protestee could not be penalized for any other incident (US Appeal 46).

    Clean Version (close to where Mike was heading) ,,,,

    FF:
    1) The protestsing boat observed the protestee take a penalty, but not in accordance with rule 44.

    Conclusion:
    A) The protestee's failure to take a proper and timely Two-Turns Penalty broke no rule. It meant only that she failed to take a penalty. No right-of-way incident was described in the protest, therefore the protestee could not be penalized for any other incident (US Appeal 46).
    Thu 03:57