Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Should the Race Committee Protest?
Mike Forbes
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
- National Judge
0
If a Race Committee witnesses an infringement that other competitors also witness (like a boat sailing thru the start/finish line when it shouldn't), but no competitor Protests, should the RC Protest or leave it to competitors to ignore? Are there grounds for Redress if the RC does NOT Protest?
I'm sure I've seen guidelines that suggest an RC SHOULD protest if NO competitors witness the infringement, but should NOT if there ARE competitor witnesses. but can't find them!
I'm sure I've seen guidelines that suggest an RC SHOULD protest if NO competitors witness the infringement, but should NOT if there ARE competitor witnesses. but can't find them!
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
The poison line is usually put there as a safety issue, where subsequent fleet starts, or multiple laps, can put boats head to head. It might even be worthwhile to notify the boat on the radio immediately after the race, to make sure others don’t see what she did and think it’s OK (and to help prevent her from doing it again in subsequent starts).
That said, 60.3 says “may”. The only committee that is required by the rules to protest is the Technical Committee. 60.3 is not excluded from change in the SI’s so an SI could put a “shall protest if witnessed” in the poison-line rule.
The line does not fit the def of MARK, as it has no required side. So passing thru the line when not starting or finishing is NOT a course error as it still passes the string test.
Also.. is the line an OBSTRUCTION if NOT specifically noted in the SI? and so does R19.2 apply ?
Purpose or Objective
To make the Definition Obstruction, Rule J2.2(17) and SI L10 consistent with one another, and
to permit the common practice of prohibiting boats from crossing a line designated as an
obstruction.
If your sentence starting "Boats may not..." is in the Course Description then it stands to reason that the prohibition is indeed part of the course, and violating the obstruction of a closed line in incorrectly Sailing the Course.
Often, when I notified a competitor they will be protested for not sailing the course (when we had to do that before NSC), they would often say oops and retire. The conversation goes a bit differently now, but it's all the same result.
Then again, I'm not a judge!
Reasons
The additions of ‘or line’ in the definition Obstruction, rule J2.2(17) and SI L10 permit the
sailing instructions to make a line an obstruction and require boats not to cross it, a
reasonably common practice, but one that is, technically, not allowed because it
changes the definition Obstruction, which is not permitted by rule 86.1.
The addition of ‘object to rule J2.2(17) and SI L10 makes them consistent with the
second sentence of the definition Obstruction.
When an area or a line is designated as an obstruction, it is frequently desirable to
prohibit boats from entering such an area or crossing such a line. The proposed
changes permit that.
I think if you are required not to cross a line, it is much the same as being required to round mark A, B, C in such and such order and leave them on a certain designated side. All are requirements of properly Sailing the Course. The only difference is the lack of a required side, only that the line itself is not crossed.
Again, not a judge. And I've never had a problem with a competitor agreeing that he sailed something in error and taking the hit. Of course, I have the conversation (either in person in pre-NCS days or by posting the scores showing the NSC ASAP) in plenty of time to take it to the room, but I just never have.
And back to the original post and early responses - the RC is not required to file protests, so an exercise of judgement is not an incorrect action.
If we are asking how to write it, I think we’d want to write it such that 3 things occur
To do the above clearly, I’d define
That way, it is clear that rule 18 applies at the ends. Without that, it may be confusing to competitors at the ends between rule 18 and 19.
CASE 128 (Abstract)
If the race committee observes a boat make an error under rule 28.1 in sailing
the course and fail to correct that error, it is required to score her NSC. If it
observes a boat touch a mark as she finishes, it must score her in her finishing
position and it may protest her for breaking rule 31.
RRS 28.1 (in relevant part) - "While <Sailing the Course>, she may leave on either side a mark that does not begin, bound, or end the leg she is sailing."
While the RRS doesn't equate mark with obstruction, I think the requirements of where to sail, either to go or to not go around or thru a mark, gate, or obstruction, is part of STC. Since is it not unusual for me to be wrong, I ask the judges, if a boat was scored NSC for crossing a line defined as an obstruction, and assuming the facts are not in question, would you grant her redress for being scored NSC instead of being protested under the SI?
And now I shall keep my tongue! or fingers, as the case may be....
We don’t want to have implied marks. If it is a mark of the leg, it needs to be stated.
Sailing through an obstruction … just like running into one for that matter …. by itself does not itself break a rule. Not being given room by a boat that owes you room at an obstruction breaks a rule. This is why an additional rule is required that forbids crossing the line.
Just calling it poison and an obstruction doesn’t get us to NSC .., JMO.
I’d also want to see precisely how the poison-line was stated in the SI’s (and how the course was stated).
Undisputed facts would be that a boat sailed thru the S/F line which was closed by SI. RC scored her NSC. Boat filed for redress. I guess the error upon which the redress was requested would be that the RC equated mark with obstruction. Would a jury grant the redress?
Upon some reflection (I had to cut the grass!), I think a way around it all is to describe the Start and Finish marks in the Marks section (#10 in the templates) as required, and either there or in the Obstruction section (#11 in the templates) perhaps some language such as "The Start/Finiah line(s) as defined below (Sections 12 & 14) is (are) an obstruction(s). The line and its attendant marks are considered a mark of the course and may be passed on either side unless starting or finishing. Boats breaking this rule shall be scored NSC." makes the point?
"After completing the first leg of the course, a boat shall not cross the starting line. A boat shall not cross the finishing line until she is completing the last leg of the course and finishes. A boat that breaks this rule shall not correct her error. However, she will be exonerated if she takes a Two-Turns Penalty (see rule 44.2). This changes rule 28.1. On a leg of the course from W to L or from L to W, boats may leave the line between S and F either to port or to starboard.
For reasons of safety, on legs of the course from W to L or from L to W, the starting and finishing lines and the buoys S and F are, taken together, one obstruction, and therefore rules 19 and 20 may apply between boats while they are approaching and passing it."
That way, boats can organize themselves for passing the mark inside the zone as usual.
Sounds like a nice assignment for the RRoS forum! But don’t want to hijack Mike Forbes topic.
Mike Forbes, are you happy with the direction this thread is going or are there OP questions still open in your mind we should return to?
If other boats were able to the infringement, it is a self-policing sport, and I believe the RC should not protest.
If safety was compromised I would say the RC should consider a protest.
As the RC does not have to protest there can never be a successful Redress claim.
When looking at 19.1, you will see the problem. To boats sailing along the front of the line, the line could be a continuing obstruction. The last sentence clearly states that to those boats 19 applies and 18 does not apply (as he points out 19 and 20 may apply).
For boats approaching the line from outside the line, they are not “at a continuing obstruction” so it is a mark … so 19 doesn’t apply but 18 does.
Dick Rose’s language works fine, but seems to do so without defining the ends as marks of the course and therefore without 18 applying or being involved in the string rule (and thus sail the course).
Ending the line-obstruction at the zones of the end marks removes this ambiguity, as does clearly specifying them as marks of the DW leg. The string-rule in sail the course relies upon the string touching rounding marks and passing marks on the correct side. The string rule says nothing about passing obstructions on one side or the other or touching them.
I think it’s worth spending a few extra electrons on the forum trying to see if there is a clear way to craft something.
I asked two questions above, the only one who responded at all was Mike Fering who responded positively to the language I put forth. So far no judges have responded to the redress question, other than AG who asked about the wording in the SI. At the least, I assumed that "the starting/finishing line is closed" would be the extent of the SI.
To respond to the original question and somewhat to Mike B's points: 1) Case 39 addresses the RC's obligation to protest, altho it seems Case 138 supersedes to require scoring a boat NSC if the situation calls for it.
Then the scoring a boat NSC became a topic. In my humble opinion, it's all solved by making the line and the marks bounding its ends (the obstruction) a mark of the course, which does not begin, bound, or end a leg of the course and thus, per RRS 28.1, can be left to either side (redundant in the language I presented, which is a no-no).
One has to know the fleet as well. Much of higher level racing mitigates this with a starting line to leeward of the course and a finish line in either the same place (or separately from the start line but still to leeward of the leeward mark/gate and thus moot) or to windward (or in place) of the weather marks. I think it's safe to assume a simple "don't cross the S/F lines or you'll get scored NSC" SI would suffice for a large portion of the fleets for which this kind of course setup is contemplated. It is, after all, a common practice to close said lines.
I will be interested to see (tomorrow!) if any judges care to weigh in on my two questions above, 1 regarding a redress request, and 2 regarding the efficacy of the language I presented.
Thank you all for all you do!
-- Carl
Mike Forbes answers at the top of this thread 6/12@10:49 .. it does not meet the definition of a mark if boats can pass it on either side.
JMHO .. and I think this answer goes back to Mike Forbes' original thrust as well as Carl's parry ...
...and here's the big one .. Appx A is completely customizable by the NOR and SI's.
If I was asked to write an SI so that an RC has the obligation to score a boat equivalent to NSC without a hearing and to have the ability of the boat to "correct" there error, I might write it as follows .. maybe call the penalty PSN.
Above, you get ...
PS: note I borrowed "line extension" from rule 30.1, since that concept is established.
An RC could simply be satisfied with the ability to protest a boat and keep it much simpler.
Time is short, and I am at the Moth Worlds and potentially busy.
The SW article is from 2010, which is, what, 3 rulebooks ago? Frankly, my eyes glazed over reading it - I get that the line is closed - and I'm into this stuff. I feel for those (sailors?) who might have better things to do than wade thru stuff from 13 years ago. Has anybody reached out to Mr. Rose for an update?
Good thing I publish SIs only after a blessing of the PC, so anything I put in there won't be a surprise should it end up in the room. Should Angelo and I serve at the same event I will word the closing of the line and the penalty for violating the rule as he wishes.
Here endeth my rant. I did learn some stuff in the research done, always a good thing. The Casebook and the RRS Study Guide are quite helpful!
Thanks for all contributions.
Mike