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

  • Jim,

    Maybe I can reword my answer to be a bit more convincing.

    Note, 'reasonableness' is still there in the Case 103 headnote

    The phrase ‘seamanlike way’ in the definition Room refers to boat-handling that can reasonably be expected from a competent, but not expert, crew of the appropriate number for the boat.

    Bear in mind, I'm talking about more or less subconscious mental processes on the part of judges. 

    Consider a ILCA national championships.  Mid fleet, while not showing the superb boat handling of Robert Sheidt, or Brett Beyer, boats will consistently be making tactical crosses inside significantly less than half a metre, and observers may form a view that those close margins are reasonable, and not imprudent.

    Now think about a bunch of sailing school Fevas bouncing around, and an observer would not reasonably think that boats within half a metre were not likely to collide.,.

    The reasonableness test, at the end of the day, however we moderate and qualify it, depends on the judgement and opinions of the protest committee.
    Today 22:37
  • Clark,

    Have a read of Juno v Endeavour

    Torruella J was emphatically of the view that a protest committee decision constituted a binding arbitration under US commercial arbitration law.


    Thus, the CHARLES JOURDAN and the ENDEAVOUR were contractually bound to race by the rules of the road contained in the IYRRs, and to resolve issues related to fault for any collisions according to those rules. This is consistent with the long-established traditions and rules of conduct of this sport. See generally J. Rousmaniere, The Golden Pasttime: A New History of Yachting (1986). Moreover, there is a well-established public policy encouraging the private resolution of disputes through arbitration and other non-judicial forums. See Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.; Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 834, 130 L. Ed. 2d 753 (1995); Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 107 S. Ct. 2332, 96 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1987); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 10, 104 S. Ct. 852, 858, 79 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1984). See also United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36, 108 S. Ct. 364, 369-70, 98 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1987) (labor disputes); Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V SKY REEFER, 29 F.3d 727 (1st Cir.) (COGSA), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 571, 130 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1994); Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 94 S. Ct. 2449, 41 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1974) (international arbitration agreements).

    We also note that our decision here comports with Sec. 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which pointedly states that "[a] written provision in any maritime transaction ... to settle by arbitration a controversy arising out of such ... transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable." These conditions exist here.9  Yacht racing is a maritime transaction, and the provisions of the IYRR establishing the racing rules and the protest procedures are in writing and binding on participants.
    Today 22:16
  • Thank you Chin In.
    Today 13:38
  • This appears to be a very old conversation. While I loved Sail100 I have seen comments that it no longer works with the current versions of Excel. KSail is the current go-to platform for results services and very good at it. That said, I an not convincd that Swiss Lague does what it says. I am no mathemetician but the "shall not meet again" criteria does appear to be critical. It can result in a bounce effect, and we still get a number of matches which are not competitive. I have a sneaking feeling that the older system of grading competitors in a series of leagues and then going gold silver bronze leagues MAY have prodced better racing. 
    Yesterday 22:18
  • Al, not sure the 2nd or 3rd bullet are correct. 

    • Rule 14.a: If reasonably possible, a boat shall avoid contact with another boat
    • Rule 16.1: When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear. 
    • Per definitions, both boats are windward boats, so per Rule 11, both boats need to keep clear of each other. 

    The definition Leeward Windward says "When two boats on the same tack overlap, the one on the leeward side of the other is the leeward boat. The other is the windward boat." As neither boat is on the leeward side of the other, there is no leeward boat, so there cannot be a windward boat. Rule 11 does not require either boat to keep clear of the other boat. Which means rules 15, 16, and 17 of Section B which limit the actions of a right-of-way boat do not apply.

    • Rule 14.a: If reasonably possible, a boat shall avoid contact with another boat.
    • If there is contact Rule 43.1(c) does not apply as neither boat is the right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled.
    Thu 14:51
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more