• Proper Course NOT close to the mark
  22 Comments
  Jim Champ Yesterday 20:01
• Mark Room, RoW, Proper Course, Exoneration
  26 Comments
  Stewart Campbell Thu 14:41
• Case Index Enabled/Fixed on Mobile Devices/Browsers
  0 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Wed 20:39
• RRS Org's Search-Function is Upgraded
  8 Comments
  Angelo Guarino 25-Nov-08 20:13
• 18.1(a)(2)
  17 Comments
  Nicolas Ch. 25-Nov-08 13:02

• Proper Course NOT close to the mark
  Thanks Angelo, I see your point and agree if Blue gives Yellow room to sail past the mark on any point on the required side that is giving the required room even if it is just the last space before the mark.  So “promptly” in the room definition, does not define the objective of the room which is to pass the mark on the required side.
  
  

  But can it be concluded that “promptly” in the room definition implies that the least room that needs to be given by Blue, throughout the maneuver, is a straight course for yellow from where she enters the circle to alongside the middle mark on the required side? I.e. blue can’t force yellow to sail a looping course above the rhumb line to the edge of the mark.  (Dare I say past the direct corridor to the point alongside the mark?). A looping course would not be sailing promptly to “passing the mark” at any point.
  
  

  
  
  Bob Lewis Today 22:40
• Mark Room, RoW, Proper Course, Exoneration
  As several people here have pointed out, the test of whether a boat's proper course is to sail to the mark is just that, a test. It does not convey any right to sail a proper course, only to sail a course directly to the mark. The World Sailing Rule 18 Working Party, of which I was a member, knew this would be confusing and worked hard to figure out how avoid having that test. We were unable to find a reasonably concise description of what we wanted, so we kept the wording about a boat's proper course being to sail close to the mark.  
  
  So if the test is confusing, why have it? The reason is simple: The whole purpose of rule 18 is to enable boats to get around or past marks in some orderly way without giving keep-clear boats more room than they need  to do that.  In some situations, boats sail through the zone of a mark without sailing to it -- consider boats sailing past a limiting mark, or finishing a couple of boatlengths from one end of the finishing line. In those cases, we do not want a keep-clear boat with mark-room to have the right to turn toward that mark when she would not ordinarily do so.. One test of whether a boat would ordinarily do something is pepper course, so we went with that. 
  Rob Overton Today 22:15
• Fair Play and Disputes: What Happens When Coaches Speak Disrespectfully?
  There were a couple of US Sailing RRS 69 cases, back in about 2009 that somewhat spectacularly miscarried.  Some protest committees hold the belief that RRS 69 is a 'nuclear option' and its use exposes the protest committee to the risk of legal action if there is the slightest procedural misstep.
  
  This is a somewhat outdated view.
  
  Up until 2013, WS or a MNA under the powers in RRS 69 had the power of 'suspending eligibility, permanently or for a specified period of time, to compete in any event ... '.  For professional sailors this was readily able to be interpreted as a restraint of trade, and could easily lead to court action in the CAS or a civil jurisdiction.
  
  In 2013 and 2017 RRS 69 was changed significantly by:

  • introducing provision for a person to present the case against the accused in the hearing so that there was an accuser and an accused in the hearing and the protest committee was not acting as prosecutor, judge and jury,
  • introducing a right for the accused to have an advisor and a [legal] representative with them who may act on their behalf
  • introducing the standard of proof of 'comfortable satisfaction'
  • raising the threshold of reporting to the MNA from anything above a warning to a penalty above DNE
  • removing all powers of investigation and penalisation by a MNA or WS from RRS 69 and relying solely on the MNA/WS by-laws or regulations.

  
  Here's the main submission
  
  Submission 201-15
  Rule 69, Appendices M & N
  A submission from the Chairmen of the Constitution Committee, Race Officials Committee and Racing Rules Committee
  Purpose or Objective
  To update RRS 69 to remedy shortcomings based on experience since the current version was introduced, and in response to the undertaking to CAS to review the processes.
  The rule should be updated to achieve the following:
  (i) remove the concept of “Gross” misconduct as distinct to misconduct from this rule;
  (ii) to reintroduce a rule of misconduct by supporters, coaches and similar;
  (iii) to maintain the concept of increasing penalties determined by the severity of the misconduct;
  (iv) to establish a higher threshold before the decision of a protest committee should be notified to a national authority or ISAF; and
  (v) to remove from the rule the procedures to be followed by ISAF, which will be set out in a new or amended Regulation generally.
  To improve the guidance to protest committees acting under rule 69.
  To update RRS Appendix N (International Juries) in line with the new RRS 69 and to improve the guidance for the conduct of hearings.

  
  The changes to RRS 69:

  • remove the notion that a RRS 69 hearing is a 'star chamber' in which the protest committee acts as accuser, judge and jury, and the accused is unable to be properly advised and represented.
  • make it clear that it is a purely 'sporting' rule affecting places in races, or participation in a single series of races, and 

  
  The effect of this change has been to reduce the risk that a person subject to RRS 69 action will think it necessary to pre-emptively engage in litigation against the protest committee and, given the entitlement to have advice and representation in the hearing and the effect of RRS 4.3, reduces the risk that any such litigation will succeed.
  John Allan Sat 23:08
• How long is the race committee allowed to change the position of the first windward mark?

  Niko,   I think there can be value in the +/- five degrees in certain situations. Where we frostbite on Boston Harbor, we're liable to get big swings, and RC will often leap-frog the windward and offset to aim a little bit closer to the new shift in case it stays. In other words, shifting a buoy 4 degrees is regularly the right move in an 8 degree shift. Whether they should then signal is up for debate, but I'd argue that most can still find the mark, and it takes some risk (and work) off for the RC that might encourage them to be a little more active. Just my opinion. 

  
  I think the whole point of Race Management Policies s12 is to discourage race committees from being too 'precious' about small shifts.  Here's the guidance
  
  12, Change in wind direction:
  (a) With a persistent wind shift of 10° or less the course will not be changed unless necessary to adjust for current or to provide a true downwind leg.
  (b) Between 10° and 15° consideration will be given to adjusting the course to the new wind provided that the race committee is confident that the shift is likely to persist.
  (c) With a persistent wind shift of more than 15°, the race committee will attempt to change the course to the new wind
  
  Note that the WS Race Management Policies are intended to apply at WS Championship and Olympic events.  I would suggest at lower level events the criteria should be quite significantly increased.
  
  What s12(a) is saying is that unless there is a persistent wind shift of more than 10 degrees, leave the course alone.
  
  Far from 'encouraging race committees to be more active', the guidance is intended to encourage them not to dither around.
  
  I suggest that a 4 degree change is unnecessary.
  
  In my opinion, switching off the requirements of RRS 33 is a bad idea,  race committees should accept the guidance in the Race Management Policies and put themselves to the discipline involved in RRS 33.
  John Allan Thu 21:17
• Port-Starboard vs Mark Room at Leeward Mark
  Stewart, I'm sure you've snatched many a pebble from a hand. 
  
  Again, I understand the connection you are making .. I'm just suggesting that, when explaining it to others, you are better off not combining them.
  
  Actually, Case 75 is a good example why ...
  
  In Case 75, the ROW boat is also entitled to MR.  In the discussion it is stated that ... 
  
  

  "When S gybed just after position 2, she had not sailed farther from the mark than needed to sail her proper course. Indeed, in the absence of P (the boat "referred to" in the definition Proper Course), S's proper course might well have been to sail even farther from the mark and higher than she did, so as to make a smoother, faster rounding and to avoid interference with her wind by being backwinded or blanketed by other boats ahead, and to be far enough upwind after leaving the mark astern that she could tack without breaking rule 13. "

  
  However, if we change the scenario such that both boats are on the same tack, and inside is not ROW and will not have to gybe ... 18.4 does not come into play ... and the inside KC boat will not get the extra space as described above in the Case 75 quote. 
  
  In that scenario, inside could be sailing inside her PC but be outside of her MR. 
  Angelo Guarino Thu 12:02

Forums Leader Board

This Month