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.
Is this two turns penalty ok ?
Hi everybody !! Red must do a two turns penalty, after the first turn, in position N°2 red prefers move away to complete it. This two turns penalty is ok ? Does Green break rule 23 ?
Thanks you !!! Cheers !!!
Created: 23-Mar-11 13:42
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2013-2016; Version 6
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2017-2020
Racing Rules of Sailing for 2021-2024
Great Britain - RYA has declined to grant a license for prescriptions and cases.
World Sailing Cases
World Sailing Q&As
Match Race Calls
Match Race Rapid Response Calls
Team Race Calls
Team Race Rapid Response Calls
World Sailing Judges Manual
In addition, when Green altered course by tacking, she was obligated to give Red room to keep clear under rule 16.1. Red continued on port to keep clear and then resumed taking her penalty.
1. It is possible that Green broke rule 23.2 by tacking and thereby preventing Red from promptly completing her second turn. Was tacking like that Green's proper course?
2. If Green did not break rule 23.2, then Red met her obligation to keep clear of Green and then promptly resumed her circling penalty.
Either way, I would not penalize Red.
Rule 23.2 says nothing about what Red should do if she is interfered with. Of course, she can protest Green, but she must still complete her penalty for the original infringement. My inclination would be not to further penalize Red. I believe that she completed her two turns as promptly as she could, recognizing Green's actions.
Rule 44.2, One-Turn and Two-Turn Penalties
For a boat to properly take a turns penalty she must comply with the two requirements of rule 44.2: to get well clear of other boats as soon as possible; and, to promptly make the required number of turns.
SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
Daring was rounding a port-hand windward mark on starboard tack when she touched the mark. She wished to take a penalty and sailed past the mark and to windward of the course to the next mark. She bore away and gybed and then found her intended course was blocked by a number of boats, including Hot Rats, which had rounded the mark behind her and were sailing to the next mark. Daring sailed back towards the mark on port, allowing the other boats to pass her and then tacked to finish taking her turn.
Hot Rats protested Daring for hitting the mark and not properly taking a penalty. The protest committee found that Daring had not taken a One-Turn Penalty in compliance with rule 44.2 and disqualified her for breaking rule 31. Daring appealed on the grounds that the course that she actually sailed was equivalent to the disadvantage that she would have suffered in taking a One-Turn Penalty.
The appeal is dismissed.
The requirements in rule 44.2 are absolute and cannot be satisfied by actions that may be equivalent, in time or distance.
The first requirement is to get well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible. If a boat commences her penalty turn from a position where the predictable course of other boats means that she would have to interrupt the turn, then she has failed to sail well clear as required by the rule.
The second requirement is to promptly make the required number of turns in the same direction, each turn including one tack and one gybe.
Daring did not sail sufficiently far from the fleet in order to take her turn as evidenced by the fact that other boats, who were sailing an entirely predictable course, interrupted the taking of her turn. Therefore, Daring was not well clear of other boats, did not take a One-Turn Penalty and was correctly disqualified for breaking rule 31.
As a matter of safety, Red looks around, sees that she is "well clear" of Green, and commences her two-turn penalty by turning away from Green. At that point, most sailors are concentrating on the safe execution of the penalty as quickly as possible and not on watching for possible course changes by a boat that was on a course to pass some distance from the circles she was sailing. Green's tack caused her to interfere with Red.
RE Simon Zuchowicz: As above, Red was "well clear" of Green when she began her two-turn penalty and should not have to anticipate that Green may infringe rule 23.2.
Clark, I happen to have been on the jury this case is based on so I am happy to see the similarities. While our case involved a one turn penalty and this one a two turn penalty, we felt that by stopping the turn to sail straight (for whatever reason) meant the turn had stopped and therefore didn’t comply with the wording of the rule. In this case, the rule requires that two turns are done (which they are) in the same direction (which they are) but that they be done promptly, my interpretation is that by sailing straight for what looks to be three hull lengths, she has failed to comply with this part of the rule.
Yes, it is strict but as promptly is not defined or in terminology it must be interpreted in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use and a quick google search shows promptly defined as “with little or no delay; immediately” I can’t consider sailing three hull lengths (without more facts on boat type, speed, conditions etc.) as a little delay and therefore the turns were not prompt.
Finally, as a race official (either as part of the race committee or an on-the-water Judge, I would not have protested Red, assuming that this is a fleet race.
If I were Green, I would hesitate to protest Red for fear of being found to have broken rule 23.2.
23.2 (assuming this is after the start) only applies if not sailing a proper course. Given a beat to windward can be sailed on either tack you would be hard pressed to prove it wasn’t a proper course without proving intent and if you can prove intent to interfere then you would likely be looking at rule 2 rather than 23.1 as at a minimum it is a deliberate breach of a rule.
I believe that rule 23.2 provides some protection for Red and that a Protest Committee should give her some consideration in the case that she initially had adequate room to perform her penalty until Green tacked. In that respect this is significantly different with RYA 2015/1 (which I totally agree with).
Green can see that Red is taking a penalty turn just to windward, and there was no valid reason for Green to tack and thereby interfere with Red’s penalty turns which were already in progress and Green breaks R23.2 and should be penalised.
Red then went on to complete her second turn as soon as she was well clear of Green.
My thought is that the real issue is what to do about Red? "Has Red complied with R 44.2?"
My question is “May Red be exonerated under 43.1(a) for not complying exactly with the requirements of R 44 as her action to delay was compelled by Green breaking a rule”?
Is it valid to apply apply R43 to exonerate Red – as one does not break R 44.2 – R44.2 describes a procedure, and one either complies with the required action or not. But I think it would be harsh to either
a) expect Red to start two turns all over, or worse,
b) DSQ Red for the original event on the grounds that she did not comply with R 44.2 and therefore did not take a penalty.