Forum: Share your SI/NOR language.
Limitations and "best practice" for additional penalty for contact
Dmitriy Filippov
1
Dear community,
I would appreciate your opinion on the following: to what extent can a sailing instruction/NOR impose additional penalties (i.e. for contact)? We have regular local events, it used to refer to RRS/Class rules only but recently the organizing party updated their sailing instruction with a following paragraph that raised many questions:
“If, as a result of any incident, there was contact between yachts or between yachts and a race committee boat, then the yachts involved in the contact receive 1 penalty point added to their result in this race. In the event that a protest was filed regarding this incident, the yachts found innocent in this incident do not receive penalty points."
During the first event under these rules, we had a situation when two boats had contact (with no damage/injury) shortly after the finishing line. Neither yacht filed a protest regarding the incident. At the end of the day (after due time for protests), we reviewed video footage from a drone and it became obvious which yacht broke the rules. However, the racing committee granted 1 penalty point to each yacht.
The motivation of the organizers is clear to me – they want to minimize damage to the boats and encourage participants to protest (in educational purposes). But the idea of punishing an innocent yacht sounds unfair to me.
Mu questions are:
1) To what limitations can a Sailing instruction impose additional penalties? (There is rule 86b that limits changes to Rules that NOR or Sailing instruction can make, rule 44 is not mentioned there)
2) Is it “good practice” to impose a penalty to all yachts that participated in an accident regardless of which yacht caused the accident?
3) Can you advise on “best practices” for additional penalty in case of contact? So far I’ve found Finnish Sailing League 2023 NOR that introduces “umpired fleet racing” appendix with rule changes in UF1 approved by World Sailing under Regulation 28.1.5(b) (point penalty can be imposed if there was contact). While I like, I assume there might be additional regulations or guidance for umpired fleet racing that I'm not aware of.
1) To what limitations can a Sailing instruction impose additional penalties? (There is rule 86b that limits changes to Rules that NOR or Sailing instruction can make, rule 44 is not mentioned there)
2) Is it “good practice” to impose a penalty to all yachts that participated in an accident regardless of which yacht caused the accident?
3) Can you advise on “best practices” for additional penalty in case of contact? So far I’ve found Finnish Sailing League 2023 NOR that introduces “umpired fleet racing” appendix with rule changes in UF1 approved by World Sailing under Regulation 28.1.5(b) (point penalty can be imposed if there was contact). While I like, I assume there might be additional regulations or guidance for umpired fleet racing that I'm not aware of.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Also, seems to me that this is changing RRS 43.1(c) [exoneration for contact of a ROW boat or one sailing in the room/mark-room they are entitled to], as under the 2017 quad, a boat "is" exonerated without need of a protest hearing.
Adding the requirement for a protest hearing changes RRS 43.1(c) [RRS 85.1, 2nd sentence]. RRS 43 is listed as forbidden from change under RRS 86.1(a) and therefore also not permitted to change in the NOR/SI under 86.1(b). This would make the NOR/SI invalid (Case 85)
There are probably more rules that the language shown changes (some rules allowed and others maybe not) that others may list.
It seems to me the RRS (as well as owner prudence and insurance concerns) already discourage contact about as much as they can. I'm not sure adding 1 point to a DSQ score is that much additional deterrent.
If you want to do something, maybe encourage the RC to be more proactive about protesting boats when they observe infringements of RRS 14. Then do the normal process and DSQ offenders as necessary.
I think we have enough rules for every kind of incident. And if boats doesn‘t want to protest. It‘s up to them.
Maybe it‘s more useful to explain the rules to the sailors => especially RRS Part 1 !
I see this as an addition to A5 and change to A5.1
But the rule was false applied or poorly written. You can only impose a penalty for incidents in a race. „… in this race. …“ If the two boats where not racing at the time of the contact, then you cannot change the results according to this rule.
When writing rules one have to expect the impact the rule will have. First this rule heavily motivates a rule knowing competitor to touch and protest other boats. Because you can infinitely worsen other boats scores this way. This has the complete opposite effect of the initial wording or intention. Aside from rewording and making the implementation more fitting to standard wording, you cannot make such a rule fair. Either you penalise both, adjusting the gain more toward the rule-breaker or you penalise the rule breaker more.
The term innocent is especially bad in such a way. It shifts the burden of proof heavily toward the boat normally sailing within the rules.
All the above are rules restricted from change in NOR/SI by RRS 86.1(b).
I don’t see how one can “write a new rule” that has the effect of changing these rules by simply calling it something different or stating that it is something different and doesn’t change them.
Now, there is no rule dealing with a boat making contact with an RC boat that is not a mark. So, if one wanted to write an SI that forbids boats from touching a non-mark RC vessel, that’s wide open. (PS: we recently had a discussion around SI’s that forbid contact with moored boats and moorings while racing for instance).
The new rule, let’s call her NoR 1, in itself does not, in my understanding, change RRS 14, 31 or 43 . You can still get a disqualification or exoneration by these rules. The interpretation, application or handling are exactly the same as before.
J.1.3 (5) demands that such a rule as NoR1 need to be in the Notice of race and not in the sailing instructions. Each competitor can decide before entering if this rule breaks the game for her or not.
Let’s think about a rule that would not involve the word contact. Like: if a competitor spits in the water the the boat gets 1 point added to her final score. This new rule would only affect the scoring and thus would not change for instance RRS 47.
Or: each time a competitor tacks between her starting signal and finishing she shall receive a penalty point added to her race score. This rule would heavily influence the way one would race but is not a change to RRS 13.
We have in fact in many dinghy regattas a safety rule for check out if you go afloat and check in if you are back ashore. If you don’t sign yourself into the list despite being on the water or back from it, then you get a DPI penalty. I personally don’t like the rule because in most NoR you have not a mandatory harbour or times you can be on the water. But the discussions end often in circles around safety and micro-managing competitors. Can you write rules that demand changes in behaviour of the sailors? Everyone does it in some form in their SIs. But it is only a change if you differ the wording, make an addition, delete a part or contradict (c85) an existing rule.
In RRS 14 it is stated that „A boat shall avoid contact if reasonably possible. (…)“ How is NoR1 „(…)then the yachts involved in the contact receive 1 penalty point added to their result in this race(…)“ an amendment or alteration to the statement of RRS 14? The preface for the 2 rules are quite different. One is telling what competitors shall avoid and the other is a scoring penalty for any contact. A boat can be penalised by both rules or only one of them. They are not logically bound to each other.
Webster
Exonerate, v.:
1: to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
Oxford
In each rule of RRS 43, a boat “is exonerated” when it meets each rule’s criteria without any hearing or process. IMO, putting a penalty on a boat and adding the burden of filing a redress to have it removed is a “hardship” and a “burden”.
PS: NOT THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS AT ALL, BUT ….
The RC should just protest boats when they learn there was any contact (if that’s what they want). That is the real effect of the OP text. The NOR/SI can change RRS 60.2 such that the RC can protest for contact no matter how they get the info.
As these are monthly races held by a local sailing club (to promote sport sailing among students and inspire competition), many participants are this club' students, the atmosphere is super friendly though sometimes we have harsh debates during protest hearing. The organizers are doing great job not only teaching how to set sails but also doing additional courses on rules, race strategy etc. So one should not expect same level of organization as a World sailing/regional sailing event, but the organizers try to replicate conditions close to professional sailing events with the limitations they have (we have protest hearings etc). So my answer to Tim's questions would be: it's not mentioned at NoR/SI and remains at the discretion of PC/umpire.
The paragraph I quoted is indeed a translation to English (a corrected one, as the initial wording was pretty obscure and when we discussed it after the event with the organizers, they agreed with that).
The incident happended at 2 hull lengths after the finish line, so both boats are considered to be "racing", that's clear to me.
@Angelo, I haven't considered 43.1c, and the wording given indeed requires a ROW boat to protest another boat if they had contact.
@Hans, great point on the advantage for a better knowing rules boat, I felt that the rule is "unfair" in some way (other that requiring boats to protest instead of allowing them to do so), but I couldn't imagine an exact situation. In ideal world it wouldn't change anything, in real world it can.
In Finnish Sailing League 2023 NOR/SI they modified rule 14, adding optional (at umpire's discretion) penalty points:
"When there is contact between boats’ hulls, the umpires may, without a hearing, impose a point penalty of one point on a boat that was penalised in the incident. Furthermore, the umpires may also impose a point penalty of one point on other boats if they consider that they contributed to the contact."
Rule 43 is not mentioned. But as I get it, as under this NOR additional point penalty is included in rule 14, a ROW boat would be exonerated too. This change has been approved by World Sailing, so that should be the correct way to introduce additional penalties for breaking the rule 14.
If these are people learning to sail on the OA’s or other borrowed boats, without umpires on the water (as Tim points out), and the main thrust of the sailing is teaching and getting people excited about the sport, then I think maybe you should consider installing yellow flags on the boats and let them do scoring penalties instead of turns.
The Annapolis YC uses a graduated scoring-penalty system in their “fun” races that is helpful. I’ve started with their language and simplified it for your application below:
John A mentions changing RRS 63.1, but I agree that’s putting a bomb into the process. If teaching is the intent, penalizing first and asking questions later in a possible redress hearing does not teach them the normal order of things.
If you add my previous addition of RRS 60.2(d) above and Appendix T, the RC can take reports of contact, protest, and get them in front of a Judge/Arbitrator, hear the incident, possibly resolve it and teach after a penalty is taken. If not, then it goes into a full hearing with the risk of DSQ.
The combination of my 60.2(d), Appx T and the penalty system above, incentivizes on-the-water penalties by offering lower penalties (which are easy to take .. just pull Yellow flag) and sweeps reports of boat on boat contact without a penalty into a process more “normal” when teaching new sailors.
PS: You would want to modify Appx T to be a 3-place penalty to match SI 12.2(c) above. The end result is that if they mess-up taking the penalty on the water (forgot to fly Yellow flag or did not report to RC after the race), through the arbitration up until the hearing starts, it’s a 3-place penalty.
Impose an extra penalty for breaking RRS 14?
RRS 64.2 provides
When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing has broken a rule and is not exonerated, it shall disqualify her unless some other penalty applies.
To impose an additional penalty for breaking RRS 14, all that is necessary is for SI to say:
The applicable penalty for breaking RRS 14 is, in addition to disqualification, the boat shall have one point added to her series score.
The fleet racing RRS more or less assume that boats racing will be in charge of their owners, and that risks and costs of damage arising from collisions, once RRS requires boats to avoid contact, will be adequately dealt with by agreement between the owners and application of the civil law of liability.
For very expensive boats, such as Superyachts, or restored classic boats like J Boats, WS may apply special rules about avoiding contact because it is highly likely that any contact will result in serious damage and very high costs. For ordinary boats no special rules appear necessary.
In Dmitriy's example, presumably we have boats provided by the OA.
In match racing, where boats are provided by the OA, risks of boats being sailed, shall we say 'imprudently', are dealt with in two ways:
In Dmitriy's example, again, presumably the young sailors involved don't have the means to lodge substantial damage deposits, so the only avenue left to discourage imprudent sailing is additional penalties.
I think additional penalties in Dmitriy's example are quite appropriate.
RRS 64.2 provides
When the protest committee decides that a boat that is a party to a protest hearing has broken a rule and is not exonerated, it shall disqualify her unless some other penalty applies.
There is no way under the RRS that a boat that has not broken a rule can be penalised.
As Angelo has discussed, it is also wrong to penalise a boat that has broken a rule but is exonerated.
Is it a good idea?
It is a bad idea, unfair and contrary to the rules to attempt to penalise a boat that has broken no rule.
See the discussion above: it is not permissible to penalize a boat that has not broken a rule.
It is permissible for SI to give a race committee the power to penalise a boat that has broken a rule without a hearing, by stating in the SI that 'the race committee may score a boat xxx without a hearing. This changes RRS 63.1.'
Is it a good idea?
Consider the exceptions to RRS 63.1, that is: in rules 30.2, 30.3, 30.4, 64.4(d),
64.5(b), 69, 78.2,
These are all rules involving the observation of a simple matter of fact, within the specific responsibility of the race committee.
In other words, the facts are open to very little challenge and the application of the rules is within the usual expertise of the race commitee.
Race committee members are not necessarily qualified or experienced as either umpires or judges. There is no guarantee that they have any expertise in finding facts or applying, in particular the rules of Part 2. Unlike the extensive procedures provided in RRS 60 to 64 to ensure fairness in deciding protests, the race committee has no procedures for finding facts or applying the rules, and has no power to conduct hearings to receive evidence from witnesses or parties.
It is a very bad idea to make the race committee the judge and jury for significant breaches of RRS Part 2.
Summing up
Bottom Line
Provide for an extra penalty for contact if you need to, but only allow this to be imposed by a proper protest hearing.
Would one need to add some mention of exoneration into that or phrase it such that it is after a penalty is applied? Below puts it in terms of post-penalty and thus after consideration of exoneration.
RRS 64.2 says
When the protest committee decides that a boat ... has broken a rule and is not exonerated, it shall disqualify her unless some other penalty applies.
So a boat can't be penalised at all if she is exonerated. I don't think it's a problem.
But I don't want to die in a ditch for my wording.