• Is There a Case in the Future for A Less-Formal Meditation Process
  1 Comment
  John Quirk Today 14:00
• Happy Holidays!
  1 Comment
  Paul Zupan Yesterday 19:56
• Can a boat break RRS 2 while breaking RRS 23.1?
  22 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Yesterday 11:40
• 2 questions on 18.3.
  11 Comments
  Nick Taylor Mon 16:41
• Class breaks in handicap racing
  23 Comments
  Jonah Zimmerman Fri 06:18

• Is There a Case in the Future for A Less-Formal Meditation Process
  The formality of hearings reflects procedural requirements that protect the competitors. 
  We always want the competitors to enforce the rules on themselves before coming to the room. Coming into the room means there is either a fundamental disagreement about the facts or a fundamental disagreement about the rules, and sometimes both. 
  If there were some sort of mediation with a non-binding opinion rendered by an official, there is a danger that you could taint any subsequent hearing by allowing parties to rehearse their whole cases and by effectively giving at least one party arguments from an official, presumably a member of the PC, to cite to the rest of the PC before they are allowed to ask their questions. I am assuming here that an entire panel is not involved, because if they are, what is the point? 
  Logistically, I am not sure how such a process could fit within the normal Protest Time Limits, and the last thing we would want to do, in the interest of efficiency, is to add even more delays top the existing process.
  We are better off improving education about the process, being visible at the skippers meeting and walking the docks, and then making our hearing and decisions as expeditious and predictable as possible. If competitors know we will be predictably fast and fair, a lot of the reluctance to the room will dissipate.
  Michael Balay Today 15:28
• Class breaks in handicap racing
  definitely agree, although ORC seems to have issues with full-keel boats for some reason.
  Niko Kotsatos Today 14:32
• Can a boat break RRS 2 while breaking RRS 23.1?
  Ben makes some great points.  As far as RRS 42.1's use of "compete", IMO, it's unnecessary in the sentence and does not add any value or information as far as I can tell (and might even be a source of ambiguity as Ben infers).
  
  Part 4's preamble already limits its rules to while a boat is racing. Therefore, 42.1 seems perfectly fine without "compete" as ... 
  
  

  42.1 Basic Rule
  Except when permitted in rule 42.3 or 45, a boat shall compete by using [use] only the wind and water to increase, maintain or decrease her speed. 

  
  
  I'm fine with def:racing as it's defined.
  
  In regards to my OP question, IMO, a boat is always in an assumed-state of "competing" while they are racing.  The open-end in that "assumed-state" is when does a boat "retire"?  (and how do others know as there is no defined method/signal/indicator in the RRS). 
  
  We've had other threads on that question, and the use of that term, as it would be cleaner if "retire" was only used when a boat takes a penalty (since the RRS specifically refers to RET as a penalty a boat can take).  For instance, boats might call to the RC and say they are retiring when the race goes dead-calm ... but many RC's will score that as DNF or TLE (if TLE is added in SI's) and not RET.
  Angelo Guarino Today 13:13
• Happy Holidays!
  Same to everyone too, from the Philippines...

  

  John Quirk Today 04:08
• 2 questions on 18.3.
  Are we assuming 15 and 16.1 do not apply?
  Philip Hubbell Yesterday 19:03

Forums Leader Board

This Month