Skip to main content

Forums

Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.

Powered by WIND


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • I don't believe the RRS has anything much to say about the disposition of prizes and awards after the prizegiving is over. I don't think I 've ever seen one left on the boat, or change hands when the boat changes hands. If its not in the rules I suggest it comes down to custom, and custom, I submit, is clearly that prizes are awarded to the crew of the boat. If we take that to be the case then borrowing a local boat doesn't impede eligibility.

    In the UK, BTW, conventionally all crews are deemed to be temporary members of the host club for the duration of the event. Might be something to do with alcohol licensing laws. So a particularly egregious logic chopper might suggest that all boats are local. Where lies insanity!
    Today 05:41
  •   I fear that a 70 degree swing of a mast head does not fit “ROW’s full range of reasonable sailing.”

    Perhaps consider what happened on the other end of the mast first.

    Full trim > No trim in a short period.  - - That is the range of reasonable sailing I'm referring to.  What happens as a result is just that.. a result of reasonable sailing.
    Yesterday 23:48
  • Michael, yea ... thats a great format for longer range planing .. but having a very simple table with the following is key 


    Set TWD (mag)
    Leg#  Mrk1 Mrk2 Bearing TWA(p/s)  Dist

    That could easily fit width wise on a phone. 

    When setting the marks, if they are govt marks hyperlinking to details regards bells/flash height etc .. avail as a pop-up will keep the list clean. 

    Yesterday 15:31
  • Richard, thank you for your open minded response, but i agree with Sue that relaxing the promptness of the hail and RRS 44 penalty requirements would be undesirable.

    One of the purposes of the suggestion was to reinforce the requirements for prompt hail and prompt response.

    If you let go of those requirements you will get into all sorts of disputes about:
    • what incident the hail referred to,
    • whether the hailed boat ever took a penalty for that incident, and
    • whether there was advantage.
    Tue 14:31
  • AIUI the purpose of making the respondent (not a word in this RRS) field mandatory is that the system automatically messages that entity that they are the subject of a hearing.  Naming a boat there will make it appear that that boat has been protested.

    Wouldn't a better solution for requests fo  redress be to either omit the respondent field or make it non mandatory, and message the race committee that a request has been received in every case?
    Tue 14:20
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more