Forums
The Racing Rules of Sailing |
1809 Posts
|
|
Rule 18 and Room at the Mark |
173 Posts
|
|
Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures |
107 Posts
|
|
Race Committee & Race Management |
79 Posts
|
|
Rules 2 and 69 |
49 Posts
|
|
Match and Team Racing Rules |
46 Posts
|
|
Training Materials, Presentations and Classes |
59 Posts
|
|
Share Your SI/NOR Language |
49 Posts
|
|
Event Management & Forum System (Q's, Comments & Suggestions) |
172 Posts
|
|
Regole e dintorni - Italian Channel |
50 Posts
|
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.
Recent Posts
-
5 CommentsMark Townsend, Today 03:22
-
10 CommentsPPaul Zupan, 26-Jun-11 03:44
-
24 CommentsAnt Davey, 26-Jun-10 15:57
-
6 CommentsPaul Murray, 26-Jun-08 17:15
-
42 CommentsPBenjamin Harding, 26-Jun-05 10:55
Recent Comments
-
Replaced Zone with Rounding or Passing ( = from the time her proper course is to begin to manoeuvre to round or pass...) for windsurfing, could probably work for some windsurfing events, but for the standard fleet racing, it certainly causes more trouble than the standard concept with the Zone.
I think that more modern (flexible) kite and wing rules recognized the trouble and "moved back" to the Zone concept.
It creates much more predictable and clearer situations and is easier to decide what to do, from the point of view of competitors.
The moment when a windsurfing board starts to manoeuvre to round or pass might be, in some situations, "clear" for the closely positioned observing judges, but it can also be almost impossible to see and establish from the point of view of another competitor. (Typically, at the leeward mark approached by boards on different tacks from 2 pretty wide angles)
Establishing the moment when a board reaches the zone, together with the concept of RRS1 8.2e) (=solving the doubt if a boat obtained or broke an overlap in time), offers a predictable and safer solution.Dušan Vanický Today 09:13 -
What I am saying is that it is more complicated than simply having a gravitational force component parallel to the local surface of the water. Surfing, as a general phenomena, is defined and understood. Where it isn't defined is in the RRS. Unfortunately, this forum is not the place for the very long and very deep dive explaining the physics of surging, surfing, and planing. But to me, the take away is that we need to understand the difference between surging, planing, and surfing and when each of these is possible to be able to properly interpret and apply RRS 42.John Christman Today 01:16
-
Wow Paul ... that must have been a lot of work (and moving forward as the working out the kinks phase begins).
Congratulations!
AngAngelo Guarino 26-Jun-11 21:03 -
Thanks Ben ... yea .. you asked how the reasoning would go and I obliged :-)Angelo Guarino 26-Jun-09 17:05
-
MIke ' There is really no such thing here as a rule 2 protest, there is a protest where rule 2 may be considered',
I don't think this is quite right. It is making a RRS 2 protest look like a RRS 69 hearing which it is not.
I agree that a breach of RRS 2 that affects the fairness of the competition on the water will usually be accompanied by a breach of Part 2, but even if it is not, a breach of sportsmanship that affects the fairness of the competition is nevertheless an incident in the racing area and requires a hail of 'protest' and if necessary display of a flag.In match racing there would be a double penalty, a bit like rule 2
Agree, and in OP case, I think we have- 'B also turned down to weather of A. A hailed B to keep up. B responded by trying to duck down below the the line causing A to avoid contact. Demonstrates intention.
- ' The helmsman on the boat replied if they stayed up both boats would be OCS and continued to turn down.' Demonstrates to gain advantage.
Boat B broke RRS 2. RRS 36(b) does not exempt a RRS 2 breach. On valid protest B should be DNE.John Allan 26-Jun-09 00:57