Forum: Race Officers
Error in timing between warning and prep signal
John Standley
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
- International Judge
- National Umpire
0
This may seem a simple (silly) question but here goes and I am hoping for a quick response to point me in the right direction for the definitive answer. The following scenario happened some time ago and was not the subject of any process or proceeding.
Here is the scenario …
Rule 26 states in sentence 2:
Times shall be taken from the visual signals:
The advertised time of the start is 13.45hrs with the warning at 13.40hrs
The RC displayed the warning signal at 13.40hrs with a sound signal.
2 minutes later at13.42 they displayed the prep signal with a sound signal.
All the fleet started at 13.45hrs.
Seeing the class flag still up two late starters watched for the next 30 seconds or so and saw the class flag come down and 'X' flag hoisted. They returned and restarted.
The RC was not aware of any possible error at the time and allowed the race to continue and scored the majority of the fleet as OCS.
I recall being told many years ago, when I started sailing, that timings should be taken from the prep signal if there was an error in the timing at that stage however I am not sure that the wording of rule 26 conveys that message now.
My questions are:
Which flag should the boats take their timing from?
Do the boats that started at 13.45 have a valid redress claim as they took their timing from the warning signal, and should they be awarded redress?
Here is the scenario …
Rule 26 states in sentence 2:
Times shall be taken from the visual signals:
The advertised time of the start is 13.45hrs with the warning at 13.40hrs
The RC displayed the warning signal at 13.40hrs with a sound signal.
2 minutes later at13.42 they displayed the prep signal with a sound signal.
All the fleet started at 13.45hrs.
Seeing the class flag still up two late starters watched for the next 30 seconds or so and saw the class flag come down and 'X' flag hoisted. They returned and restarted.
The RC was not aware of any possible error at the time and allowed the race to continue and scored the majority of the fleet as OCS.
I recall being told many years ago, when I started sailing, that timings should be taken from the prep signal if there was an error in the timing at that stage however I am not sure that the wording of rule 26 conveys that message now.
My questions are:
Which flag should the boats take their timing from?
Do the boats that started at 13.45 have a valid redress claim as they took their timing from the warning signal, and should they be awarded redress?
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
The 'facts' from the RC are a bit hazy to say the least and it may be that the prep was made at the correct time but the error made with the one-minute signal and the prep was not removed at the right time.
There has been a series of errors of the RC in this scenario which should have lead to postponement (if discovered early enough) or abandonment if discovered later.
So while the first element for redress is satisfied, we’ll assume the competitors results have been made significantly worse the third element of qualifying redress, through no fault of their own, is harder to meet the boats haven’t complied with the definition of Start nor with the individual recall.
While it is widely understood sailors will take their time from either the Warning or Prep signal and often not look at the remaining signals the definition of start requires a boat to be wholly behind the line “at her starting signal” which Rule 26 is the removal of the Class flag.
Mistiming so happen, but the RC should have processes onboard to identify this has occurred with time to take prompt corrective action so very poor race management here.
For whatever reason the RC did not do this
My question relates to the rule which says 'Times shall be taken from the visual signals'.
Which visual signal - Warning, prep, or prep removal?
We notice every error in timing after the warning signal when I’m racing. If there is an error at T-4, we will be prepared to reset the timer at T-1, but most times the RC is back on the clock.
Rule 26 doesn’t give any priority to the signals, but the RRS seems to. The prep signal is used in def: racing and starting-signal in both def:start and def:proper course. Those 2 terms permeate through the RRS, so those 2 signals have a large impact.
What’s interesting about John’s scenario is that those 2 key signals are correct relative to each other, it’s the warning to the prep-up that is incorrect. So another way to see it is that all the signals were “correct” except the warning in that
prep-up = T-4
prep-dn=T-1
Start=0
Obviously this should have been noticed by someone. Even a competitor could have hailed the RC on VHF and pointed out that the prep was 1 min late.
Signals shall be considered made when the visual signal is displayed and the timing or absence of a sound signal shall be disregarded.
However, Case 31 states:
The requirements in rule 29.1 and Race Signals regarding the making of a sound signal when flag X is displayed is essentially to call the attention of the boats to the fact that one or more of them are being recalled.
It goes on to say:
'When the sound signal is omitted from an individual recall, and a boat in a position to hear a sound signal does not see the visual signal and does not return she is entitled to redress.'
So, the absence of a start sound signal becomes problematic when recalls are made as, if competitors do not hear two separate sound signals at the start, they will not look back for a recall signal.
I am sure others can come up with some better wording for rule 26 and then a submission can be considered for WS RRC.
How can boats adjust their timing to a starting signal when this is the last signal of the sequence?
Any boat that states that its score has been significantly worsened, and no fault of her own,is entitled to redress.
Boats do not have to take their time from a particular flag, they can do so from any of them.
Alvaro and I seem to be making a similar observation that rule 26 doesn’t seem give priority to any signal. That said, the wording of 26 could be interpreted that each succeeding signal overrides the timing of the prior one.
Allow me to throw this plate of spaghetti against the wall …
So there are 2 requirements.
Since the times are “taken from” the signals, whenever the signal is made, that is when the individual time-marker is taken.
So, John’s RC posts the prep flag 2 min after the warning, the 4 min time “shall be taken from” that signal. Then the following prep-down and start are in sequence and “on time” (but it appears that reading it this way means being on-time is immaterial .. it defines itself when it happens).
“Times shall be taken .. “ is an interesting sentence construction. Which “times” and who is the “shall” directed to? Competitors? RC? Both? Assuming, the RC is using a clock to count-down the sequence, this reading creates a bit of a logic loop here … the RC is using a clock to time the signals, but then takes the time from the actual signal execution.
Rule 26 has a list of time-remaining meanings, but we also have the elapsed-time of a boat’s race, which includes the start-time taken from the starting signal.
Prep-down is the last opportunity for a boat to “take” a time-remaining time from a sequence-signal. Maybe an argument can be made that as long as that last time-interval is 1 min, then the prep-down supercedes all previous time-remaining signals and a boat doesn’t have a path to argue that their incorrect start was “no fault of their own”.
I agree with Jeremy & John Allan, each signal is made when it is made, regardless of when it was scheduled to be made. If you're over the line and the class flag is still up (with or without a sound), you're OCS.
The RC did break rule 26 by mistiming the starting sequence signals, but I think I'd have a hard time granting redress given that every boat saw and heard the same signals (assuming the OCS signal was made properly) and some of them started properly. When prep went up a minute late that should have alerted the boats that the RC was having issues and they needed to watch all succeeding signals closely. It definitely would have been helpful if boats had pointed out the error by voice or VHF, and the RC had put up AP and started over.
I suppose it is complicated by the fact that when class flag came down and the X flag went up the boats that were OCS had been sailing for a full minute and probably weren't watching the signal boat any more - but a double sound signal (start and X flag up) should have alerted them, assuming the sound signals were made.
Another possible consideration - suppose a boat broke a rule of Part 2 between 1341 and 1342?
For example... The race committee sees the club hero's boat approaching the line a few seconds early and removes the class flag and sounds a horn a few seconds early, so they are not OCS. The race committee sees the club hero's main competition approaching the line a few seconds early and delays removing the class flag and sounding a horn a few seconds late, so they are OCS.
Rule 26 says races shall be started by using the following signals. The table defines the visual signal, sound signal and the minutes before the starting signal each is made. It says that the absence of a sound signal shall be disregarded. There was six minutes between the warning signal and the starting signal, which is an error of the race committee.
Rule 29.2, General Recall, allows the race committee to signal a general recall if there has been an error in the starting procedure. "When at the starting signal ... or there has been an error in the starting procedure, the race committee may signal a general recall (display the First Substitute with two sounds)." The start signal was one-minute late. Rule 29.1 allows to signal a General Recall, which they did not. They could also abandon the race or postpone before the start. Allowing the race to continue would also seem to be an error of the race committee.
You could make an argument that as the start was signaled one-minute late, boats that crossed the start line after 10:45 were incorrectly scored OCS and reinstate them in their finishing positions. Not sure that the race committee can do that under rule 90.3(c).
Then you can deal with the late starters in the following redress request.
Several things can be judged correct by the boat and through no fault of its own:
# He took the warning signal and then he couldn't see or hear the following ones. If 5min elapsed until he crossed the line, he doesn't need anything else.
# If after taking a signal its time until another does not adjust, it cannot know which is the correct one.
Not a successive signal override the previous one! They are all one and by seeing one you have seen them all.
Nor am I saying that those who left before the starting signal was lowered are not OCS but they do have the right to redress because it was due to an error by the CR and through no fault of their own because they took a signal that the CR gave.
All this has just confirmed to me that there are some issues with the wording of rule 26 and I will discuss this with my MNA and see if we might make a submission to WS.
John
Going through the case book looking for cases with the word fault in I find 31, 44, 79, 110, 135. 45 and 129 are also relevant. There may be others I've missed.
In 31 A did not start correctly, and a narrow interpretation of fault would be that she ought to have known that. The case takes a much wider view, and considers that as the boat had no part in the RC error and she thought she had started correctly then redress is appropriate.
In 44 the case found that there was no evidence that finishing position was affected, so the fault clause doesn't come into it.
In 45 redress is given to boats that fail to finish correctly due to a RC improper action. Again a narrow interpretation is that they should have known they were not finishing correctly. By contrast Case 129 gives us a very similar situation, but with no improper action by the RC, just poor race management, and the case does not grant redress.
79 mirrors 31, with a similar result, noting that the error was entirely the RC's fault.
110 does not hinge on the fault aspect.
These cases appear to me to make an interpretation of 'no fault' that is really quite generous in favour of the boat seeking redress. My own feeling/interpretation of 45/129 is that if the RC is found to have acted improperly and confused competitors the presumption should be towards granting redress, but if there was no improper action, merely poor race management, the presumption should be that redress is denied. Greater clarity would surely help PCs to make their decisions.
I believe rules should be worded to clearly state what they mean and, where possible, written in a way that is not open to different interpretations.
I think the current wording of rule 26 does lead to a reasonable interpretation that the starting signal will be made 5 minutes after the warning signal and that it is therefore reasonable for competitors to take their timing from the visual display of the warning signal. There are often occasions with long start lines when it is impossible to see or hear signals from the pin end of the line and a boat wishing to start at the pin will have to sail away from the start boat for the full 5 minutes.
If there is an error in the timing we have a clear error by a race committee. Whether or not redress would be given is, as you say, subject to different rules and the 'through no fault of her own' provisions would play a big part here.
If the intent of rule 26 is to say that minor discrepancies between the display of the flag and the timing of the sound signal is resolved in favour of the signal display, then I think this is what it should clearly state. There would then be no redress claim to consider.
So if we go back to your first question in your OP, the answer to 'which flag' is "any of them", and I submit that is what the rule assumes. So it seems to me we only have a problem with the wording of the rule in a situation where the RC has already made an improper action. What sort of change in wording did you have in mind, and in what circumstances would it be useful? Resolution for improper actions in the start sequence is already dealt with in 27.3 and 32.1.
Currently rule 26 says "the absence of a sound signal shall be disregarded". Does this mean you can run a starting sequence without any sound signals provided you display the correct visual signals? Or are you only allowed to you miss one sound signal? Combined with the current wording in rule 29.2, it appears to allow the race committee to ignore timing errors. "When at the starting signal ... there has been an error in the starting procedure, the race committee may signal a general recall (display the First Substitute with two sounds)."
Possible change to Rule 26.
shallmay be disregarded.This is why the rules are not wrong being permissive because they assume with good judgment that they will be used in accordance with the good criteria that created them, the fact of forcing the committee to do things in a certain way will not fix this and much less will fix everything that is done wrong.
The same defect of lack of understanding of the sport is present in the entire sport of sailing currently and increasingly, in the organization, the CR and the CP, (see that they are called judges, and what they impart is not justice but their own opinion and that is how it should be but they should only be CP and not Jurys, the terminology matters a lot) we must continue on the path of self-compliance and the Basic Principle at the risk of continuing to do a merry-go-round instead of a regatta.
“ …except the absence of a [single] sound signal
shallmay be disregarded.”What happens, for example, if the RC's failure to make a sound signal is because they're unable? Gun's broken, out of ammo, horn out of gas, etc.? Now the RC can't even signal an AP or GR properly.
In the OP's instance, the RC made errors in the starting procedure and then failed to take the appropriate corrective action as spelled out in the rules. Perhaps a solution would be to score the two boats that returned and started at the starting signal 1st & 2nd, and then score the boats that started when the starting signal "should have been" and didn't return in order of their finishing places. Alternatively, if a handicap race, maybe give the boats who returned a few minutes time adjustment. I think either of those options would represent "fairest for all boats." I agree that scoring almost the entire fleet OCS isn't appropriate, but neither is ignoring the error entirely since some boats were disadvantaged more than others.
I wonder if its time for a paradigm shift, and look for changes appropriate to the modern world we live in.
Before we go making suggestions to reinforce old-school concepts such as 'must take times from flags' and 'ROs must hoist flags at certain times or else...', perhaps we should think long term.
We all have GPS coordinated clocks / watches / MFDs etc on board. The times are suitably synced with accuracy required to fairly start races. Most ROs are using GPS time anyway.
---------------------------
26. STARTING RACES
Races shall be started according to the following sequence.
Times shall be taken from a GPS time source and any signal shall fall on a whole minute.
The corresponding visual signals shall be made at or as closely after corresponding sequence times as possible. The race committee shall signal a general recall if there has been an error in visual signals. However, the absence of sound signals shall be disregarded.
===========================
For OPs case, abandoning should be the last resort. It's clear that redress is available.
It seems sensible to leave the results for all the OCS (hoping they were recorded at the finish), and work redress in for the two boats who got it technically right. Rather than ruining everyone's day. Get the whole fleet together and let them agree on scores!
https://time.is/
Available on any smartphone with a web browser and my watch is spot-on GPS time (even Jim Champs cheap Casio will keep time within 1 sec over 12 hrs). :-)
Ang
I suggest one thing to be aware of is that not every RC error is going to be of sufficient magnitude to compromise a fair start, and if the competitors all start fairly and evenly in spite of the best efforts of the RC they aren't going to thank us for calling them back.
I'm well aware I have nothing like the experience or rules knowledge of most of you folk, but this discussion as its proceeded has only reinforced my opinion that redress of some kind should be available for significant RC errors. I think it would be helpful if there were a case discussing requirements for redress and particularly "No fault of her own". I suggest part of it could be to state that redress is always available when the trigger was an improper action by the RC. Another part might be that if multiple boats make the same error then the presumption should be in favour of granting redress.
Case 79
In the scenario at hand, the class flag was still flying and no start signal had been made so it was reasonable for competitors to note.
The rules do no presume every sailor has a start timer or watch, nor do they make provision or allowance that allows sailors to simply set a timer based on the first or second signal in a sequence. That is the issue we have. We recognise the flag signals not going at the correct time is an error of the race committee.
There is significant inconsistency between how Juries (and I’m looking specifically at International Juries) interpret and apply “no fault of their own”. Looking at decisions by the Int Juries at 5 events over our summer he tendency seems to be to apply a very strict reading.
Rule 26 itself is very reasonably written and any tweaks are fraught. Absence of sounds are disregarded because of the difficulty of sound being a) sufficient enough to travel the length of the line and b) the time taken to do so, not every sailor or boat will have a timing device so the primacy is place on the making of a signal. The RC not appropriately timing the signals is an error that in some cases will give rise to Redress and in others won’t if it is not appropriately corrected before a boat sails the course and finishes.
The other one that came to mind was case 140. As you say, not the same facts at all, but is another example how the actions of the boat can effect determining fault/no-fault.
Case 45 hinges on very different facts in that it found the SI describing the finish was invalid as contrary to the definitions and so scoring the boats DNF was an error of the RC that made the boats scores significantly worse through no fault of their own (the boats had complied with the RRS). So again I don’t think the case in any way addresses the issue at hand here.
One Int Jury decision of recent note was at the ILCA Oceania Championship. The SI contained a clause that RC could not change a leg of the course after the Prep signal. Shortly before a start due to a persistent wind shift to the right the RC asked the markboat to move Mark 1 to the right. The mark was still being moved after the start. Two boats that had observed where the mark originally was and picked out a guiding landmark and taken the left side of course sought redress. The Jury found moving the mark was an error but that the mark boat had been available for all boats to see and therefore being caught out left and falling well back in the places was not through no fault of their own and redress was denied.
“When it says ‘no’, it’s means ‘No’. ‘No’ means “NO”.”
Perhaps that is a flaw in the way the rule(s) are written but that’s where we are at.
I don't see any need for rule changes, to me as both a competitor and RO they are clear.
If we (RC) make a mistake during the start sequence and identify it before the start then AP goes up, even if its 1 second to go, and we start gain - its a signal to the competitors that something has gone wrong on and we are dealing with it.
To Individual recall or general recall is a signal that the competitors have made a mistake and over cooked their start sequence.
If we identify a mistake after the start then the race should be abandoned and restarted.
I think the attempts at suggesting a rule change all try to put more onus on the RC to postpone/restart when a significant divergence in the starting sequence has been made. There is nothing in the rules to require an abandon/restart
I personally agree with Mark T’s post 100% that allowing such divergence is fraught and I agree with Jeremey’s conclusion that “no means no” (my words) for redress.
The way the rules are written, times are taken from the visual signal and the lack of a sound signal can be ignored. So the starting flag goes down 5 sec’s late and the horn doesn’t go off, 5 boats are over early because of that error. Are we really expecting boats at the last second to be looking back over their shoulder trying to see the RC (which will likely be completely obscured at this point)? There is nothing that requires the RC to abandon and restart.
I’d be in favor to , if nothing else, add more importance to the timing between the prep-down and the starting signal, where a significant timing error there provides an opening to a boat to receive redress.
I think it’s 100% fine for members to workout their ideas and get feedback from each other on the forum. Who knows, they might stumble onto something that’s really great.
Jeremy, may I inquire further on case 45. The PC reinstates the boats that finish correctly and who undoubtedly qualify for redress. But rather than scoring the boats that finished according to SI as DNF, they elected to score them in finishing places, and this was what was appealed and upheld. Are you saying that although the PC was required to make arrangements for all boats in the light of the successful redress hearing and thus did so, redress would not have been available to the boats who finished according to the SI if they had asked for redress on their own behalf? Or have I misunderstood you?
In relation to Case 45, I wasn't reading that far down in to it. The question neither the PC nor Appeal Committee had to deal with was the unlikely scenario that the RC scored boats that had finished per its own SIs as DNF. I am not sure I personally would expect competitors to know that SI's can't change a definition and this the SI was invalid. That would be an extreme example of "no fault of your own". I suspect that may be why the scored the boats who had finished that way. The case dealt with the reverse facts with a scenario that is somewhat more common that we would like (though usually without the conflicting SI).
I think the problem with tweaking the rule at all to put "more" onus on the RC to postpone or abandon misses the main element in the given scenario that the RC was completely unaware of the timing error. They can't take action to correct an error they aren't aware of. The rules already provide scope for the RC to postpone, general recall or abandon (I will agree with Steve that although the rules permit GR for an error in the starting procedure better practice is to abandon.... GR- competitors fault, Abandon- RC fault). There are many many occasions where there is an error in the starting procedure that does not affect the fairness of the start with all boats able to start cleanly at the start signal, to obligate the RC to halt those starts and restart will frustrate sailors and RC volunteers to no ends. At the same time I am yet to see an RC, knowingly, let a race run where the start sequence was significantly impacted. This scenario is a very extreme example.
My original question was really about the second sentence of rule 26 which, as said earlier in the thread, I think is meant to cover minor discrepancies between signal display and sound signal.
Something like:
Where there is a minor error between the display of a visual signal and its accompanying sound signal times shall be taken from the visual signal; the absence of a sound signal shall be disregarded.
The rule will then say what (i think) it means!
Any major issues should be picked up bt the RC and the sequence postponed and restarted.
I would not like to see 'shall' in rule 27.3 for the reasons stated by Jim and Jeremy.
I also have sympathy for the comments made by Benjamin and maybe the rules should be more considerate of the way competitors actually take their timings in this age of accurate clocks and GPS's.
I will not go into all the issues that happened on the day but suffice to say the OCS boats were reinstated and the returning boats given a reasonable time adjustment. Part of the process did not stand up to rules scrutiny and, if it were a World Championship the race would undoubtedly have been abandoned in my opinion. But it was a Saturday club race and nothing would have been achieved by abandoning and all went home with a reasonably fair outcome and no one requested redress.
I do not think it unreasonable for common sense to prevail with less strict interpretations to be applied for redress in circumstances such as this, but had it come to a formal protest/request then the rules might have been applied more strictly.