Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Sailing the course
Harold Howell
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
- Club Race Officer
0
At a recent event the fleet was sent on a triangle windward, leeward, windward course. The SI clearly depicted that the offset mark should be rounded for both the triangle and the windward leeward legs. Several boats did not round the offset mark on the triangle.
A mark set boat observed “several boats” miss the mark and noted two of the boats numbers, but did not note at least one other. The mark boat driver was not an appointed member of the RC but was a credible source.
Several competitors saw the infractions as well. After the days racing the PRO was approached about the infraction. The PRO indicated that if boats observed the infraction they should protest under rule 28.
Several competitors were upset that the RC would not take unilateral action and score the boats whose numbers were noted, an NSC.
The PRO did not have a mark boat recording roundings at this or any other mark except of course the start and finish. It would seem unduly prejudicial to take actions on one or two boats if there was not a conscious effort to observe and record all boats. This was an incidental observation.
While under A5.1 the RC can score the boats an NSC, I can not find where this is a manadarory action unless the RC themselves noted the infraction. It would seem more prudent that the observing boats file a protest under rule 28.
A mark set boat observed “several boats” miss the mark and noted two of the boats numbers, but did not note at least one other. The mark boat driver was not an appointed member of the RC but was a credible source.
Several competitors saw the infractions as well. After the days racing the PRO was approached about the infraction. The PRO indicated that if boats observed the infraction they should protest under rule 28.
Several competitors were upset that the RC would not take unilateral action and score the boats whose numbers were noted, an NSC.
The PRO did not have a mark boat recording roundings at this or any other mark except of course the start and finish. It would seem unduly prejudicial to take actions on one or two boats if there was not a conscious effort to observe and record all boats. This was an incidental observation.
While under A5.1 the RC can score the boats an NSC, I can not find where this is a manadarory action unless the RC themselves noted the infraction. It would seem more prudent that the observing boats file a protest under rule 28.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
That would be up to the PC to determine as sometimes the course description and diagrams in this case are at odds (I've seen such a diagram myself showing both W/L and triangle going around the offset, but the written course description excludes the offset in the triangle course)
I think many PC's would say a mark-boat driver is automatically part of the RC as they are performing an "RC function". See Introduction ->Terminology-> "Race committee - The race committee appointed under rule 89.2(c) and any other person or committee performing a race committee function."
Yes, they should.
There is nothing in the RRS which excludes "incidental observations" on behalf of the RC
See the words "shall be scored" in A5.1 (emphasis added):
"A5.1: A boat that did not start, sail the course or finish or comply with rule 30.2 , 30.3 , 30.4 or 78.2 , or that retires or takes a penalty under rule 44.3 (a), shall be scored accordingly by the race committee without a hearing. Only the protest committee may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat’s score.
Didn't that change in the last quad revision of A5.1?
The RC must score the boats that they believe did not sail the course properly as NSC. As pointed out by Angelo, this is what A5.1 requires. No option exists. If the boat disagrees, possibly because of an error in the SI, then their recourse is to ask for redress.
Also, even though the RC may not have a complete list of the boats that didn't sail the course properly, that does not relieve them of their responsibility to score the ones they believe/observed did not sail the course properly as NSC. If there is doubt by the RC as to whether a boat did or did not sail the course properly, they should assume that the boat did sail the course properly. A rule hasn't been broken until you are certain it has been broken.
Sorry Angelo, I was not quoting from the rule but out of my fuzzy recollection. The rule does say "shall" but that is assuming we have credible evidence that this happened and does not remove the responsibility of the competitor to protest. The RYA Race Management Guide says "NSC – A boat can now be scored NSC without a hearing if the Race Committee are satisfied that she did not sail the course. Be careful of relying on a report from a non-race committee member. Do not score NSC when the reporter has the right to protest – they should protest. The Race Committee can still protest the boat but not as a result of a report from a person with a conflict of interest e.g. a coach." I was always taught that if we accept to be governed by the rules we should not ignore others breaking the rules.
"Several competitors were upset that the RC would not take unilateral action and score the boats whose numbers were noted, an NSC. " - This is simptomatic of the bigger problem that competitors don't want to/couldn't be bothered to protest where a quick shout on the water could have solved the problem.
Going forward I believe I will simply write into the SIs a modification to A5.1 to indicate that the Race committee will observe and record infractions at the start and the finish only with regard to NSC scoring. If a competitor sees an infraction their recourse is to protest under rule 28.
Otherwise, the requirement to ensure credible observers or in mark boats would make it even harder to staff volunteer positions. Furthermore, it leaves to onus on competitors to protest and not force the RC to be the adjudicating authority (bad guys).
That people are upset at the RC for doing their job is a different problem. Is it proper for the RC to ignore the rules? Which rules are they allowed to ignore and under what circumstances? If they want to ignore specific rules then they should write that into the SI so that everyone knows how the game is going to be played.
We also have redress available that allows the competitors to challenge the score. They can question the mark set people and figure out what exactly they saw.
As far as the RC being the "bad guys", what about scoring a boat OCS, BFD, UFD? Is that being a bad guy? What if the RC sees someone hit a mark or the start or finish boats? The RC has a responsibility to all the competitors and the sport to enforce the rules as written. This is why the rule writers chose the word 'shall' instead of 'may'. If is a deliberate choice of words.
Your "solution" of using the SI to change the rules is a slippery slope. Suppose a boat simply skips a mark or hits a mark and it is seen by the mark set boat. Or a boat is OCS by 0.5m, that's not that much. OCS is kind of like being a little bit pregnant. Either you are or aren't and you aren't until you are sure you are. Sailing the course is the same.
By placing the onus solely on the competitors you are asking the RC to decide which rules will be enforced and which they are going to ignore.
Look closely at courses #6 and #0 ... the diagram 'clearly depicts' both the W/L and triangle courses going around the 1A offset .. but the mark-order list does not.
We had a thread about it here (my 3rd thread ever! LOL). The course discussed in the thread was "Course 0".
eg. Imagine a crowded windward mark where a port boat can't get in line (or tries to and fails). They circle below the mark and try again. After their second or third attempt, you think they've given up and decided to skip the mark entirely. I've seen multiple examples where I believe HS sailors in fact skipped this mark, PLUS two where they in fact came back and rounded. A casual observer might have noted that they pass to leeward of the windward mark. Another observer might have noted that they passed MULTIPLE times to leeward and then seemed to sail in the direction of the gybe mark. Only an observer actively counting every boat that rounded would have seen the boat in question actually round (or one looking at the right moment). There were protests over this as well, as many thought these boats never rounded. To this day, I cannot say for sure about the three boats I believe skipped the mark.
The fact remains that it's incredibly difficult to be confident in the absence of something without detailed information on all the things that in fact occurred. A race committee that is not dutifully taking rounding notes (which is best practice when possible) should not feel bad if they don't want to score a DNF without a protest/hearing.
Obviously at the finish line, you're recording, and that makes it an easy place to make that call.
If mark set boats or other RC members are going to report anyone for failing to round a mark, they should take care to report everyone who rounds incorrectly. Otherwise they should probably leave it in the hands of the competitors.
For competitors, protesting (and informing as required in 6.1.(a)(3) seems more appropriate than reporting the breach to the RC afterwards. That at least gives a competitor an opportunity to correct her error. And note that a boat doesn't break 28 until she crosses the finish line to finish without correcting her error.
I believe a boat incorrectly scored NSC without a hearing based on an erroneous report would have grounds for redress, no?
'Irrefutable evidence' is language I've not come across before.
Can you give us a reference to the guidelines that say that?
Edit:
OK Robin, I saw your later post
Robin Gray
I think this language about 'ignoring' the rules is a bit emotive and possibly is causing Harold some undue heartache.
Of course the race committee must obey the rules that apply to the race committee, but the great majority of rules apply to boats, owners, competitors or committees or organisations other than the race committee.
With respect to rules applying to boats, a race committee is perfectly entitled to ignore these rules, for the following reasons.
The RRS do not say that the race committee is required or expected to enforce the rules.
RRS Basic Principles - Sportsmanship and the Rules says 'Competitors are expected to enforce [the rules]'. (emphasis added)
Nowhere in the Race Management Manual does it say that a race committee is required or expected to enforce the rules.
RRS 60.2 says 'A race committee may ... protest a boat' (emphasis added). This gives the race committee absolute discretion whether or not to protest a boat.
Case 39 explains this very clearly
To uphold this appeal would amount to a conclusion that a race committee ... has an obligation to enforce [the rules] when members of the class themselves fail to do so. No such obligation is placed on a race committee. Furthermore, rule 60.2(a) is clearly discretionary, as it says that ‘A race committee may (emphasis added) protest a boat’.
As stated in the first Basic Principle, Sportsmanship and the Rules, ‘Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce.’ The primary responsibility for enforcing the rules therefore rests with the competitors.
With respect to NSC.
Nicholas Kotsatos
I think these posts are setting the standard of proof too high.
Of course the race committee should exercise care and caution about scoring boats NSC.
However evidence neither has to be 'irrefutable', nor beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is balance of probabilities, or for the Americans, preponderance of evidence.
Note that when this NSC rule was introduced, the risk that a race committee might make a mistake was specifically contemplated, and it was considered that the avenue of requesting redress was sufficient to deal with this risk. See Submission 139-18.
Nicholas Kotsatos
Sorry Nick, that's just not correct.
If the race committee has evidence that proves that a boat did not Sail the Course, it must, in accordance with RRS A5.1, score that boat NSC, no matter what evidence it has or does not have about other boats.
No differently from the way they inform boats they have been scored DNS, OCS, or DNF, by using the appropriate abbreviation from RRS A10 in the published results.
Race committees are not obliged to give any notice to or have any discussions with a competitor before scoring them NSC. As discussed in Submission 139-18, any lack of procedural fairness or due process arising from not informing the competitor can be cured by the boat requesting redress, with the full formality of a redress hearing.
It's never occurred to me that it might be reasonable to expect a boat to remain in the finishing area so as to inform the protestee, and I don't think it is reasonable.
I don't think a protesting boat is required to create an opportunity to inform the protestee by remaining in the racing area after she, herself has finished.
I seem to remember that the Q&A that preceded the case that preceded this rule toyed with the idea that a protesting boat was required to hail and flag at the time the protestee broke rule 28 by crossing the finishing line, but did not go on with that idea.
Consider: if a boat fails to sail the course by missing a mark she will usually gain an advantage in other boats and may well finish a considerable time before them, so there's no point on a protesting boat hanging around the finishing line waiting for a protestee that has long gone.
Informing the protestee as she finishes serves no useful purpose: once she's crossed the finishing line she can't go back and correct her error.
The function of informing the protestee, then, is to alert them to watch the notice board for a protest notice and prepare for a protest hearing (or possibly to retire). This can be achieved any time before the protest time limit.
I think it's quite reasonable for a protesting boat to return to her moorings before attempting to seek out and inform the protestee, maybe before the protest time limit could be considered.
If boats happen to come within hailing distance after finishing then the protesting boat should take that opportunity, but i don't think she is required to sail substantially out of her way to do so.
Nothing much new about it.
RYA Appeal 2003/04 which led to Case 112, on which the rule is based came out 20 years ago.
As far as the 'first reasonable opportunity' goes, consider the case where the incident happens during the first race on a three race day. Then I might expect the protestor to stay around the finish line to inform the other boat rather than immediately sailing away to a quiet area to have lunch between races. I would probably decide that telling them once everyone has returned to shore at the end of the day does not meet that test. While the boat may gain an advantage does not mean she finishes ahead of the boat that witnessed it. What is interesting to me is that the first reasonable opportunity does not apply during the race only after finishing.
As far as the level of certainty, if the mark-set people tell me they witnessed a boat not round a mark and don't know for certain that they came back, I would score them NSC and let the boat request redress or put in a scoring inquiry. I would not require the mark-set people to guarantee that the boat did not return. If they came back then the NSC can be changed by the RC or PC.
Better to take my suggestion as a caution, having been on both the RC and PC side of this situation in pretty small races, with lots of (very experienced) observers, I feel there are at least some situations where only a dedicated observer (and sometimes not even the boat herself) might be sure who has rounded a given mark. I think it's worth at least being aware of this potential "trap" before taking a less experienced observer's argument "I saw them tack away and not round the mark" at face value every time.
Not only is there an implicit promise that the race committee will obey the rules, the rules explicitly require it
RRS 90.1 Race Committee
90.1 The race committee shall conduct races as directed by the organizing authority and as required by the rules.
I take your point about opportunity arising between races on the water.
I think, of course, it depends. I would not think, in contrast to your leisurely luncheon proposition, with quick fire starts and a large fleet, sailing round looking for the protestee to inform them would be reasonable.
Sure but except in handicap racing, after a single race there's a good chance she'll be off and gone.
That's because until the boat that has made a rule 28 error finishes she has not broken rule 28.
Agree.
John I think that’s an insightful point. In other words, RO’s that do not have any judge experience, might not know or have any awareness where that line is … or even that such a line exists.
Harold Howell
See Angelo's post referring to Definitions that are not Definitions in RRS Introduction - Terminology. A person ... performing a race committee function is part of the race committee. For purposes of considering redress an action of such a person is an action of the race committee.
I think that when they receive a complaint or enquiry from a boat, the race committee should, under the 2021 RRS, 'take it to first base', that is, examine the information they already have.
If the race committee has, in its hands, proof that a boat has not sailed the course, they must score it NSC.
If the race committee is not in possession of the necessary proof, or sufficient evidence to justify the race committee in protesting, then its absolutely up to the boat to validly protest.
Rightly so. If the race committee knows that boats have not sailed the course they must score them NSC.
No more so than, for example, with on-water judging of RRS 42, where only competitors in the judges field of view will be penalised, or the case where a race committee observes a boat touching a mark where no other boat is in a position to observe and protest and the race committee protests that boat.
Ok, so how might this play out if it came to a protest committee, and let's extend the discussion to include the boats that were alleged to have missed the mark but were not recorded by the race committee.
Suppose the complaining boats took the RO's advice and promptly found the offending boats, informed them that she intended to protest them and delivered a written protest within the protest time limit.
I suggest that an ungenerous protest committee would find that the protesting boat spent time complaining to the race officer instead of finding the protestee and informing them of her intent to protest and that she had not informed the protestee of her intent to protest at the first reasonable opportunity after the protestee had finished as required by RRS 61.1(a)(3) , and that the protest was invalid.
Turns out that the RO's advice was not that good after all.
Suppose the complaining boat, within the protest time limit, delivered a request for redress saying 'the race committee committed an improper action or omission by not scoring boats that did notSail the Course NSC'.
This is not a protest. The written hearing request is not required to identify boats alleged to have broken a rule, or where and when the incident occurred as would be required by RRS 61.2. RRS 62.2 only requires that the request 'identify the reason for making it'.
Any protest committee, generous or not should find the request is valid, and hear the request.
The boat requesting redress gives evidence:
The boat requesting redress submits that it was an improper omission for the race committee not to have observed CCC and DDD failing to leave the offset mark on the required side and asks that she be given redress by having AAA, BBB, CCC, and DDD scored NSC.
I think the protest committee should conclude:
How does that sound?
The requirement of the SI was never an issue in contention in the hearing, so it's unnecessary for the protest committee to state a conclusion about it.
I'm not attracted to taking 'depicted' to mean shown only in a non verbal picture and 'stated' to mean only a verbal statement.
In any case the RRS don't say anything about courses being 'depicted or 'stated' in the SI.
RRS J2.1(3) and (4) require the SI to include
(3) a complete description of the course(s) to be sailed, or a
list of marks from which the course will be selected and, if
relevant, how courses will be signalled;
(4) descriptions of marks, including starting and finishing
marks, stating the order in which marks are to be passed
and the side on which each is to be left and identifying all
rounding marks (see the definition Sail the Course);
In your example above the diagram may be ambiguous, but the written words are not, and the words and diagram, taken together (as they should be) are complete and unambiguous.
RC determines from its own observation (including the boat driver’s) that since 1A was not a mark of the course on the triangle leg, NSC is not appropriate.
If it were me presented with that ambiguity I think I’d come down that the text description governed over the diagram. The diagram is drawn as it is for simplicity and shows that a boat may take 1a to port but the text says she doesn’t have to.
63.7 allows the PC to resolve conflicts between rules in a way that is fairest for all boats and it’s difficult for me to see how passing on one side or the other of 1a would make a significant difference. I don’t think a boat that sailed above 1a would be disadvantaged over one that sailed below.
I’ll see if I can find the drawing I did back then that “fixed” the discrepancy.
You can't generally have a 'conflict' between an ambiguous provision and an unambiguous one, like the textual course description in Angelo's example. The diagram may be ambiguous, the text resolves any ambiguity
I think that unless the course is simply around the outside of all the marks shown, a single diagram alone will necessarily be ambiguous. That is, any time the course passes between marks.
Consider Angelo's diagram above. From the diagram without a text course description it could be understood that on the downwind leg to the finish boats were required to leave Mark 2 to starboard. The text description makes it clear that this is not the case.