Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

a boat OCS/BFD/UFD retire

Aldo Balelli
Nationality: Italy
Certifications:
  • National Race Officer
  • National Judge
Good day you all.
Question: say a boat knows she is either OCS or BFD or UFD.
Being aware of that, she supposely have to retire. 
If she does not ? DNE for RRS 2 Fair sailing? 
Case 38 (beside mentioning BFD only) says that she's breaking RRS 2 if she (also??)  hinders other boat/s.
Thanks
Created: 21-Oct-23 13:41

Comments

Matt Bounds
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • National Race Officer
1
There is no requirement that they retire in the RRS; the requirement would need to be written into the sailing instructions, as would the penalty for non-compliance.

How would they be notified that they were OCS, UFD or BFD?  Almost any method would introduce the possibility that one (or more) wrong boats would be notified - which would make for a very long redress hearing.

Case 65 is the one that addresses this (not 38).  In that case, the boat intentionally broke RRS 30.4 in order to cover another boat to ensure they would not win the event.  I think that's a totally different situation than a boat unintentionally breaking 30.4 and continuing to sail the course.

 
Created: 21-Oct-23 14:24
Rüdiger Schuchardt
Nationality: Germany
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
1
Sailing is a self policing sport, meaning: if you know you have infringed a rule, you shall take the appropriate penalty in accordance with the RRS. Due to the fact that a starting error cannot be solved with a penalty turn the penalty is to retire. 
If that Boat is not taking the appropriate penalty herself, even though she knows that she has broken a rule, that is a Rule 2 infringment if it comes to the Protest Committee and the committe can find the facts as described in the case.
Similar case is touching a mark, beeing aware of it and not taking the penalty turn ...
Created: 21-Oct-23 22:02
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
1
BFD and UFD mean that a boat is disqualified in accordance with rules 30.3 or 30.4.

How can a boat that has been disqualified retire? 

What purpose would it serve?
Created: 21-Oct-24 03:24
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John, when Aldo wrote "Question: say a boat knows she is either OCS or BFD or UFD." , I believe his intention was to convey the following ..

"Say a boat knows she was over the line at the start under P-flag, or in the triangle with less than a min under Z, U or Black flags .. but is not identified by the RC as such .. "

Ang 
Created: 21-Oct-24 12:25
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
0
My view is that DSQ is a scoring annotation. While a DSQ boat is still on the course, she is racing with its rights and obligations. If she retires, she is no longer racing and becomes an obstruction. This changes her status on the course relative to other boats.

John
Created: 21-Oct-24 21:14
Aldo Balelli
Nationality: Italy
Certifications:
  • National Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Hi everybody, thanks for your comments, and i apologize for being absent this days, after posing my question.

My points are: 

Fair sailing is racing in order to have the best score. 

Interfering (hindering) with other boats is against RRS 2, unless is proven that the interfering has something to do with her final score.

A boat OCS/UFD/BFD knows she has no way to get "the best score". But she might keep "racing" just for the fun of it, or for training.

But, willing or not, she will interfere with other boats: she will be ROW sometimes, conditioning other boats tactics;  she will be at a Mark, taking the place of another boat; she will sail downwind, taking the wind off the boat ahead of her...interferences that might influence the score of that race.

Case 38 mentions deliberate interferences;  I say (but i'm not that sure about it) ,that even unintentionally, interferences (and unfair sailing) will be there.

OK, that's my thoughts, hope is more clear.
Created: 21-Nov-01 17:24
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Aldo re: "But, willing or not, she will interfere with other boats: she will be ROW sometimes, conditioning other boats tactics;  she will be at a Mark, taking the place of another boat; she will sail downwind, taking the wind off the boat ahead of her...interferences that might influence the score of that race."

I think then we rely upon RRS 23.1, which is a rule of Part 2.  Part 2 still applies to such a boat by the preamble with a specific call-out for RRS 23.1 .. 

"The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 14 when the incident resulted in injury or serious damage, or rule 23.1."

So such a boat is free to practice .. but she must not interfere if "reasonably possible".
Created: 21-Nov-02 12:57
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Aldo Balelli
said Created: 21-Oct-23 13:41

Good day you all.
 Question: say a boat knows she is either OCS or BFD or UFD.
 Being aware of that, she supposely have to retire. 
 If she does not ? DNE for RRS 2 Fair sailing? 

 
First of all, OP is offering us the assumption that the boat ‘knows’ that she is over early.  A protest committee should be very careful about saying what a boat ‘knows’: that’s something in the skipper’s mind, and absent the trusty Brain-o-Scope, that may be difficult to get conclusive evidence about.

Case 65 depended on the notion of ‘constructive knowledge’, that is that the boat ‘could not possibly not have known’ that she was across the starting line, reinforced by the fact that she was tactically interfering with a competitor after the start.

That sort of inference may not always be available to a protest committee.

For BFD/UFD:  to retire is exactly what Case 65 says.

Possibly, OP is asking what does ‘retire’ mean if the boat does not hinder or interfere with any other boat?

I think the ‘retire’ language can be disregarded.  Simply put:

  • ·         If a BFD/UFD boat hinders another boat that is racing, she breaks rule 2 and should be DNE.
  • ·         If she does not hinder any other boats, why should she be penalised any further than the BFD/UFD she has already earned?

For OCS, that is not BFD/UFD, the whole matter is a little more problematical.

Case 1 states

When a boat continues to race after an alleged breach of a rule, her rights and obligations under the rules do not change.

Furthermore, a boat, merely by being OCS, breaks no rule until she finishes when she breaks rule 28.  It is open to her, at any time during the race (subject to the SI), to return and restart correctly.

The effect of Case 65 is to switch this off, for BFD/UFD, but not otherwise.

What, then, do we see in the case of OCS, where, as Aldo says in his OP, the boat ‘knows’ that she is OCS?

She has broken no rule.  She is racing.  But she ‘knows’ that she will break rule 28 when she finishes

If it is found by a protest committee that she has intentionally put herself or remains in a position where she will break rule 28 when she finishes, and she then interferes with other boats with the intention of gaining an advantage (which would include, for example, taking right of way) she breaks rule 2.

On the other hand, consider the case of a boat that is compelled to cross the starting line early by another boat breaking a rule (for example, a starboard tack boat at the starting line that changes course to avoid a port tack boat that is not keeping clear), and is under the (fairly common) misapprehension, that she is exonerated from being OCS, and although clearly OCS, continues to race competitively.  As we have seen:  she has broken no rule.  There is no element of intentionality to gain an unfair advantage.  How, then does she break rule 2?  She doesn’t.

Created: 21-Nov-03 23:16
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Matt Bounds
Said Created: 21-Oct-23 14:24

Case 65 is the one that addresses this (not 38).  In that case, the boat intentionally broke RRS 30.4 in order to cover another boat to ensure they would not win the event.

While the inference of intentionality seems pretty obvious, Case 65 makes no finding about intentionality.  It flatly states that a boat that knows that she is BFD and then hinders another boat breaks rule 2.

I think that's a totally different situation than a boat unintentionally breaking 30.4 and continuing to sail the course.

Case 65 depends on the boat ‘knowing’ that she broke the rule, but, in effect says that she ‘can’t possibly not have known’ if she was 4 boat lengths over.

There is, of course a difference between intentionally and knowingly.  Case 65 doesn’t rely on intentionality, it uses the word ‘knows’.

A boat that unintentionally breaks rule the Black Flag Rule, but nevertheless knows that she has broken it, is BFD, and according to Case 65 is required to act accordingly.

Created: 21-Nov-03 23:21
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
 Angelo Guarino
said Created: Yesterday 12:57

Aldo re: "But, willing or not, she will interfere with other boats: she will be ROW sometimes, conditioning other boats tactics;  she will be at a Mark, taking the place of another boat; she will sail downwind, taking the wind off the boat ahead of her...interferences that might influence the score of that race."

I think then we rely upon RRS 23.1, which is a rule of Part 2.

But you can’t.  She hasn’t retired, she still complies with the definition of racing.  That’s what Case 65 is all about:  switching off Case 1.

So such a boat is free to practice .. but she must not interfere if "reasonably possible".

No, according to Case 65 she must not interfere ‘deliberately’, and what Aldo is saying is that by ‘deliberately’ staying on the race course, she will, somewhere, be deliberately interfering.


Created: 21-Nov-03 23:28
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Aldo Balelli
Said Created: Mon 17:24
 
Fair sailing is racing in order to have the best score.

That's not correct.  There is no ‘race to win’ rule in the RRS.  For example, no rule requires a boat to sail it’s proper course.  This is exactly the point of Case 78.  It is perfectly within the rules for a boat to allow another boat to beat her if she so desires.

Interfering (hindering) with other boats is against RRS 2, unless is proven that the interfering has something to do with her final score.

A boat OCS/UFD/BFD knows she has no way to get "the best score"

First of all, she has to ‘know’ that she is over early.

But she might keep "racing" just for the fun of it, or for training.

If she knows she is BFD, and if she continues racing, and hinders another boat she breaks rule 2.  That’s what Case 65 says.

But, willing or not, she will interfere with other boats: she will be ROW sometimes, conditioning other boats tactics;  she will be at a Mark, taking the place of another boat; she will sail downwind, taking the wind off the boat ahead of her...interferences that might influence the score of that race.

So, you are saying that by continuing to ‘race’ she will inevitably interfere with other boats.  I think that’s probably right as a general statement.

But all those incidents you mention are can be characterised as‘deliberate’:  they’re not ‘inadvertent’.  I think Case 65 is going to apply at least somewhere.
 
I agree that a boat that has been BFD has no business being on the race course.

But, of course, there is going to need to be a valid protest about a specific incident, to start the ball rolling. 
Created: 21-Nov-03 23:32
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John re: "But you can’t.  She hasn’t retired, she still complies with the definition of racing"

You are right.  In my mind I had assumed a boat intending to "train" around the course would have retired .. but that is not the premise that Aldo presented.
Created: 21-Nov-04 11:41
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John, re: "If she knows she is BFD, and if she continues racing, and hinders another boat she breaks rule 2.  That’s what Case 65 says."

Though I agree to a certain extent with the above, when I read Case 65 it seems to make a distinction of degree and intent that I did not read in Aldo's premise or your statement above.

The  Discussion section of Case 65 includes (emphasis added), ".. that he had seriously hindered another boat in the race. A competitor who, while knowing that his boat has already been disqualified, intentionally hinders another boat clearly commits a breach of sportsmanship (see Sportsmanship and the Rules) and rule 2."

In other words, I don't read Case 65 as saying that a boat who knows they are DSQ'd and continues to race and happens to hinder to a slight extent is necessarily sufficient to reach a Rule 2 decision.   As Aldo stated in one of his examples, simply the presence of the boat might effect tactical considerations of the effected boat.

I think we need to find intentionality in the hindering and/or a degree of effect to reach Rule 2.
Created: 21-Nov-04 12:13
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
While I usually have some reservations about headnote in WS Cases they are authoritative, and the headnote to Case 65 is quite clear.

When a boat knows that she has broken the Black Flag rule, she is obliged to retire promptly. When she does not do so and then deliberately hinders another boat in the race, she commits a breach of sportsmanship and of rule 2, and her helmsman commits an act of misconduct.

The headnote takes the interpretation provided by the case beyond that scenario of deliberate cheating described in the Facts of the case. 

There is no scope for severity there, only that the hindering is deliberate, and in my opinion, as discusse  above,  not retiring and interacting with other boats makes the interactions deliberate.
Created: 21-Nov-04 12:59
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more