• Advice? PC witness to an incident
  8 Comments
  Vince Harris Yesterday 16:13
• Standard of Proof
  3 Comments
  Mike Forbes Yesterday 15:54
• WIND Rewards Winner for April!
  2 Comments
  Paul Zupan Tue 17:51
• What daytime digital displays work at the starting line?
  3 Comments
  Philip Hubbell Sat 18:07
• Course Diagrams
  3 Comments
  Andrew Zangle Sat 01:58

• Advice? PC witness to an incident
  Angelo in scenario 1 you imply that the member of the protest committee who saw the incident might be excluded.

  Scenario #1:  One of the parties to the hearing objects and demands that the hearing only be held by the 2 uncertified panel members.

  
  

  Rule 63.4(d) says "a member of the protest committee who saw the incident shall, as soon as reasonably possible, declare this fact to the parties attending the hearing."
  
  Rule 63.3(b) says "A party to the hearing who believes a protest committee member has a conflict of interest shall object as soon as possible." Either party can object to the member of the protest committee who saw the incident. However, they should only be excluded if they have a conflict of interest. Seeing the incident does not in and of itself present a conflict of interest.
  
  During the hearing either party can call the protest committee member who saw the incident. They usually don't.
  Mark Townsend Today 00:24
• Standard of Proof
  I see it now Angelo.  It is within the text , but without the heading “Standard of proof” in bold in the line above as in prev rules. 
  Mike Forbes Yesterday 19:17
• Anyone Designed Rulebook Tabs for the 2025 Quad?
  We will each have our areas of focus.
  To Matt's tabs I have added tabs (hand printed):
  "43 EXONERA / 44 PENALTY" between PART 4 and PART 5, and
  "86 CHANGE / RULES" after 5.
  I omitted some of his because I do not require quick access to those fleets or topics. 
  On each of Matt's tabs I add a RRS number for easier searches and orientation.
  Philip Hubbell Yesterday 18:01
• 2025 RRS 18.3 Tacking in the zone
  This is the real problem here.
  The confusing way we need to sail to the mark when the proper course is to sail close to it.
  Proper course in ws rules is becoming toxic. It is used instead of the course to the next mark for reasons I an mat sure of. Above my pay grade.
  I see no relevance here to proper course.
  To me if you do not tack or leave the zone you do not loose your right to markroom.
  Clearly if you sail outside the corridor you loose the mark room protections. Exoneration.
  As soon as you step back into your mark room, by heading back to the mark if your proper course is to sail close to it, your rights return. This would generally be at a windward mark you had passed when on starboard to be rounded to starboard.
  This is so difficult with the new pass the mark.
  In team racing at mark 3 you round to port with a reach to mark 4.
  The basic tactics for a starboard row with an opponent to windward is to luff them to edge of the zone but remaining in it gybe and proceed to mark 4 having let a team mate in.
  The old problem was you if below the mark could not luff to shut the windward boat out at the mark as you had no right to sail to the mark as your proper course now from the leeward position was not to sail close to it. Clearly you can luff but 16.1 applies as you are outside the zone.
  This interpretation of a vital team racing rule mean that you have to round or pass before the later leave it astern.
  Also see team race call e12 which goes against my reasoning and says 18 if off.
  
  Team race call e2 is similar.
  If I fully accept the calls the how does the mark 3 reap work, has it been terminated.
  
  I based my beliefs of call or Mr. Will have to return to this.
  
  It has all become very confusing.
  Michael Butterfield Yesterday 13:17
• Material change in RRS 18.3
  Ang,
  
  I totally see where you are coming from. Just something inside tells me Einstein and his pals would have a great debate on this.
  
  I don't think the rule makers will bother to account for simultaneous tacking given it is infinitely unlikely. Even old Case 133 only gets as close to 'Quick succession'.
  
  Let's leave it at that then. Good stuff! Good chat! 
  
  The other point of my input here is my main point.
  
  Any scenario conclusion should revolve around the condition of the rule.  In this case, it's that one boat tacked while the other was on stbd fetching.
  
  @Mark,
  
  I believe you're right about Case 133. Thanks for the reminder. 
  Benjamin Harding Wed 22:39

Forums Leader Board

This Month