Forum: Share your SI/NOR language.

Suspending racing, use of motor etc.

P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
What is the simplest way to allow (in our SIs) for a boat to be able to suspend racing for various reasons ( e.g. using motor to avoid commercial vessel).
It has been suggested that we simply use RRS 62.1 and make the boat ask for redress.  However RRS 62.1 is very specific about the circumstances for which redress can be requested.
That approach also doesn't give guidance for how to suspend racing (e.g. taking time; doing what you've got to do; returning to the point you suspended racing; doing a 360 if the motor was used; etc.)

Does anybody have some good examples of how this can be added to SIs?



Created: 24-Jun-06 11:06

Comments

P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
1
Greg .. here is Annapolis YC's typical language in the SI's ...

18.2 A boat without way may use any means of propulsion to avoid commercial traffic that is under way provided: 
(a) the boat does not gain an advantage; 
(b) using the propulsion is the boat’s only means of avoiding the commercial traffic; and 
(c) the boat submits a report (in writing or by e-mail) with the event’s race office (see SI 3) by the protest filing deadline describing the incident and the boat’s actions.

18.3 A boat shall not exercise right of way, cross in proximity to, or interfere with reasonable transit of the race area by commercial ships, tugs, or barges. Boats must take evasive action well in advance of a potentially dangerous situation. The US Coast Guard, ship captains, and bay pilots have been encouraged to report any
incident they observe.

18.4 The race committee or protest committee may protest a boat for breaking SI18.2 or 18.3 based on information received from any source. The protest time limit does not apply. This changes RRS 60.2, 60.3, and 61.3.
Created: 24-Jun-06 11:09
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
you need to look at RRS42.3(I)
Created: 24-Jun-06 19:47
Mark Gallagher
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
1
1.2          After starting and before passing the Northwest Fairway mark, a boat in accordance with RRS 42.3(i), may use her engine whilst racing:
(a)  to avoid interfering with commercial traffic or aircraft operations.
(b)  if she has run aground.
(c)  to avoid running aground.
(d)  to avoid a collision.
 
The engine use must be logged, and a declaration made at the regatta office as soon as possible after finishing.
 
The race committee will decide what action will be taken. Breaches of this rule may only be protested by the race committee. This alters RRS 60.1 and 60.3
 
It is recommended that whilst within Moreton Bay if mercantile shipping is observed within the shipping channel that may impact their sailing area, Skippers have their engine started and ready for operation.
 
1.3          All Skippers are reminded of their responsibility under rule 9(b) of the IRPCS, (b) “A vessel of less than 20 meters in length or a sailing vessel shall not impede the passage of a vessel which can safely navigate only within a narrow channel or fairway.” Competitors shall keep clear of, and give way to, all Commercial vessels greater than 20 meters once north of Mud Island and until north of the pilot boarding area abeam of Point Cartwright, this area is deemed to be ‘Narrow Channels’ by Maritime Safety Queensland.
Created: 24-Jun-07 01:23
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
Thanks for the links and feedback.   We want a fairly flexible rule, so that we can cover unforeseen circumstances.    Specifically we wish to allow a boat to suspend racing and then to only use their motor whilst suspended.
Thus we are thinking of adding the following two rules:

 X.1 A boat may suspend and then resume racing for extraordinary or safety related reasons, provided:
    a) the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race
    b) the location and time of the suspension is logged.
    c) an application made to the race committee after the for redress to avoid disqualification.  
The race committee at its sole discretion will determine if the reason for suspending racing is valid. This alters RRS 62.1

 X.2 A boat may use her engine or other propulsion whilst they have suspended racing in accordance with X.1 providing that:
    a) the propulsion use is logged and declared in the application for redress
    b) the boat performs a 360 degree turn under sail after disengaging the motor
This replaces RRS 42.3(i)

Created: 24-Jun-07 07:46
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
1
You cannot “suspend racing”. Racing is a definition and cannot be changed.  A boat is racing from her preparatory signal until she finishes and clears the finishing line and marks or retires, or until the race committee signals a general recall, postponement or abandonment.

RRS 86.1(b) does not allow you to change rule 42 or replace RRS 42.3(i).

The rules allow you to accomplish what you want through RRS 42.3(i), sailing instructions may, in stated circumstances, permit propulsion using an engine or any other method, provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.

I would use Greg Wilkin’s wording and modify to meet your requirements.


Created: 24-Jun-07 09:57
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
Mark,

Interesting point about racing being a definition.  

However, if a boat needs to assist with a search and rescue etc. then she should be not be considered racing and thus not under RRS whilst she is conducting that activity and potentially interacting with other boats that were racing and are also assisting.  Surely, you would want the boat to be under colregs whilst doing whatever they need to do, and then for RRS to resume once they resume racing?

Even in the case of just using a motor to move away from commercial shipping, it would be strange for RRS to apply between them and another boat that was still sailing and racing. How would RRS even cope with that? Is a boat motor sailing on starboard still ROW over a boat sailing on port? Can she call for room to tack at an obstruction even though she is able to motor?

Would it be possible to have a rule that allows a boat to retire from racing and then to resume by giving herself a new preparatory signal?  That way there is no doubt that she is under colregs, but the definition of racing is maintained.

thoughts?




 




Created: 24-Jun-07 11:12
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Greg re: assist with a search and rescue etc.

The rules already accommodates that in rule 1.1 and 42.3(g).  Afterwards, such a boat should request redress for her time spend under 63.1(c). 

This is the process that should be followed such that these efforts have a record and others see any scoring accommodation as being justified and fairly applied. 

PS: agree with Mark 100% ... you need to remove the "suspend racing" concept from the mix.  If there is a big enough emergency the RC can abandon the race under 32.1(d) and put all hands on deck. 
Created: 24-Jun-07 12:34
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
Angelo, Mark, et al.

I note that the SIs for the Rolex Sydney to Hobart have "16. TEMPORARY DISCONTINUANCE FROM RACING".  Isn't this just another way of saying "suspend racing"?

I think for major situations covered by RRS 1.1 there is not significant problem with 42 and 62.  But I am concerned that 42.3(i) it doesn't define ROW rules for mundane situations like moving out of the way of commercial shipping.
How can a boat be both racing and under motor? what what ROW rules apply to her in that situation?     
For our fleet, it is highly plausible that a boat avoiding a commercial vessel by motor sailing on starboard tack could encounter a group of boats still racing under sail on port tack, under light winds with little way or steerage.   
Must those boats keep clear of the boat under motor? if not why not? Since under 42.3(i) she is still racing ??.

So how about the following, where a boat that has suspended racing is still racing, but Part 2 rules are turned off. All other rules still apply.

X. Temporary Suspension of Racing

X.1 Conditions for Suspension
A boat may temporarily suspend racing for extraordinary or safety reasons, provided: 
a) The boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race. 
b) The location and time of the suspension are logged. 
c) Any outside assistance received is logged.
d) An application is made to the race committee for redress under RRS 62.

A boat that has suspended racing is considered as not racing for the purposes of Part 2 of the RRS (When Boats Meet). For all other Rules, the boat is racing.
The race committee, at its sole discretion, will determine if the reason for suspending racing is valid. This alters RRS 62.1. 
Any time taken under RRS 1.1 (Helping Those in Danger) may be considered for the purposes of RRS 62 (Redress).

X.2 Use of Propulsion
A boat may use her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i), provided that: 
a) The boat has suspended racing in accordance with X.1
b) The propulsion use is logged and declared in the application for redress. 
c) The boat performs a 360-degree turn under sail after disengaging the propulsion.







Created: 24-Jun-07 23:06
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Greg, certainly major long distance, multiple day, open water races are more flexible and creative.  I didn't know that's what you were targeting. 
Created: 24-Jun-07 23:52
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
We are not targeting multi day racing, rather a general rule for all our SIs that will cover everything from avoiding a ferry on a Twilight race, to dropping off a sick crew member on a longer offshore race.

We just want to avoid the restrictive language of 62.1 and turn on 42.3(I) whilst being clear about ROW and procedures for doing so.

I think the observation that you can't turn off racing is good, else you have a rule that turns off all rules including itself. So I hope this formulation of just turning off Part 2, but keeping racing is workable? 


Created: 24-Jun-08 00:16
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
1
IMO the Sydney Hobart SI “A boat that has suspended racing is considered as not racing for the purposes of Part 2 of the RRS (When Boats Meet). For all other Rules, the boat is racing.” changes the Part 2 preamble, and the definition of racing, which is not allowed by RRS 86.1(a). 

The rules of Part 2 apply between boats that are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing, or have been racing. However, a boat not racing shall not be penalized for breaking one of these rules, except rule 14 when the incident resulted in injury or serious damage, or rule 23.1.
Created: 24-Jun-08 02:39
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
Greg wrote:
For our fleet, it is highly plausible that a boat avoiding a commercial vessel by motor sailing on starboard tack could encounter a group of boats still racing under sail on port tack, under light winds with little way or steerage. Must those boats keep clear of the boat under motor? if not why not? Since under 42.3(i) she is still racing ??.

The last part of RRS 42.3(I) states “… provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.“ How would a boat motoring on starboard not be gaining an advantage over a port tack boat not motoring?
Created: 24-Jun-08 02:56
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
Mark,

The "not racing for the purposes of Part 2" is not from the Sydney to Hobart SIs, but is my proposal to resolve the dilemma of who has ROW when a boat is motoring whilst racing under 42.3(i).    
The preamble of Part 2 also says:
If the notice of race so state, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules.

So is that not explicitly allowing the replacement that I'm doing in my proposed X.1 rule?

The S2H SIs simply allow a boat to temporarily discontinue racing and don't deal with the issue of the definition of racing (italics)


Created: 24-Jun-08 03:03
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
Mark
> The last part of RRS 42.3(I) states “… provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.“ How would a boat motoring on starboard not be gaining an advantage over a port tack boat not motoring?

There are a lot more differences between RRS and Colregs that don't come down to gaining and advantage or not. If the interaction is under colregs, then the give way boat needs to take early and substantial action.  Under colregs. it is not OK to duck a transom at the last moment.   If the motoring boat clearly knows that it is under colregs, then it should not put the port sailing boats in a position where they need to think about the rules.

Since Part 2 explicitly allows for SIs to say a boat is under colregs, then what is the problem in having SIs say that applies when a boat is motoring under 42.3(i)?


Created: 24-Jun-08 04:21
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Greg, re "The "not racing for the purposes of Part 2" is not from the Sydney to Hobart SIs, but is my proposal to resolve the dilemma of who has ROW when a boat is motoring whilst racing under 42.3(i). "

IMO, you can't get around def: racing.  Anything you do to add a suspension of racing will change the definition as def: racing is very clear on when racing starts and ends.

IMO, "suspend" is just another way to say "stop and recommence". Using the word "suspend" doesn't change the fact that it's changing def:racing. 
Created: 24-Jun-08 11:42
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
I think the nub of what Greg wants to do, once he has stated circumstances that  permit propulsion using an engine as required  by RRS 42.3(i), is to regulate interactions between a competing boat and other boats racing, bearing in mind that the RRS just don't contemplate interactions between a boat sailing and a boat that is a power driven vessel.

I think you can do this with wording something like this in the NOR, not the SI:

With respect  to a boat using an engine for propulsion in accordance with NOR/SI NN:
  1.  the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS [in accordance with Part 2 Preamble, last sentence] and
  2. If reasonably possible, she  shall not interfere with a boat that is racing

Created: 24-Jun-08 13:27
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
John,

Exactly.  My commodore has tasked me with a) allowing suspended racing with a more permissive set of reasons for asking for redress; b) clarification of how propulsion should be used in accordance with 42.3(i). 

I like your phrasing of "replaced by the right-of-way rules" rather than mine of "not racing", as it more directly goes to the preamble of part 2 and avoids the racing-but-not-racing contradiction.   However, we'd like that to apply to any boat that has suspended racing, not just when using their motor.
For example, a boat that is having a spinnaker snafu might be forced to sail out-of-bounds (e.g. through the moorings). The desire is that even if they break some rules whilst recovering their kite, so long as they have given way to boats that are racing that they can make an application for redress to avoid DSQ.

I have also reduced the use of the phrase "Suspended Racing" in favour of just "Suspended" to further avoid the racing-but-not-racing contradiction as much as possible

So currently, with good feedback, I have:

X. Temporary Suspension

X.1 Conditions for Suspension
A boat may temporarily suspend racing for extraordinary or safety reasons, provided:
a) The boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.
b) The location and time of the suspension are logged.
c) Any outside assistance received is logged.
d) An application is made to the sailing committee for redress under RRS 62. This alters RRS 62.1.

X.2 While Suspended
With respect to a boat that has suspended in accordance with X.1:
a) The rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS in accordance with the Part 2 Preamble.
b) The boat is still considered racing with respect to all rules defined by the Sailing Instructions other than the rules of Part 2.
c) If reasonably possible, she shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.

X.3 Redress for Suspension
For the purposes of RRS 62 (Redress), the sailing committee, at its sole discretion:
a) Will determine if the reasons for suspending under X.1 are valid.
b) May consider alternate penalties other than disqualification for any rules broken while a boat has suspended racing. The alternate penalty may be no penalty.
c) May consider all or part of any time taken under RRS 1.1 (Helping Those in Danger) to be excluded from a boat's elapsed time for the purposes of scoring.

X.4 Use of Propulsion
A boat may use her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i), provided that:
a) The boat has suspended in accordance with X.1.
b) The propulsion use is logged and declared in the application for redress.
c) The boat performs a 360-degree turn under sail after disengaging the propulsion.









Created: 24-Jun-09 01:01
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
We seem to be creating a rule for a situation that will rarely if ever occur. 

A boat using an engine for propulsion under 42.3(i) would be doing so for extraordinary or safety reasons. Shouldn’t boats not using their engine avoid them, or assist them?

Under what circumstances will a boat permitted to use an engine for propulsion under 42.3(i) meet a boat not using an engine. 

Replacing the rules of Part 2 by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules when a boat uses her engine when permitted by rule 42.3(i) would appear to create uncertainty as to what rules apply. Part 2 when engine is running but not in gear, IRPCAS when you put it in gear, part 2 rules again when the boat disengages the engine.


Rule 22 covers rule 42.3(g). This is the opposite of what is proposed for 42.3(I).

If possible, a boat shall avoid a boat that is capsized or has not regained control after capsizing, is anchored or aground, or is trying to help a person or vessel in danger. A boat is capsized when her masthead is in the water.

A boat meeting another boat that was using their engine for propulsion would need to know if the boat was using their engine as permitted by rule 42.3(g) or rule 42.3(i) to know if the have to avoid the vessel under rule 22, or are the stand on vessel under IRPCAS. 

Created: 24-Jun-09 01:17
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
Mark,

The rules I'm proposing are intended to be applicable to both significant safety events and more mundane everyday events, like moving out of the way of a commercial vessel.   In the later case, there is often more a risk of fine than any actual danger and 42.3(g) doesn't help because that is for danger to another boat.

> Under what circumstances will a boat permitted to use an engine for propulsion under 42.3(i) meet a boat not using an engine. 

Consider a light wind race day.  A boat needs to move out of the way of commercial shipping, so she starts her motor and motor sails on starboard tack out of the path of the commercial vessel, perpendicular to the commercial channel.   There are other boats racing on port tack that are already giving way to the commercial vessel by sailing parallel to the commercial channel.   The boat motor sailing on starboard perpendicular to the channel can easily interact with those boats on port.   

> Replacing the rules of Part 2 by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS or by government right-of-way rules when a boat uses her engine when permitted by rule 42.3(i) would appear to create uncertainty as to what rules apply. Part 2 when engine is running but not in gear, IRPCAS when you put it in gear, part 2 rules again when the boat disengages the engine.

The rules I'm proposing do not change part 2 only whilst using the motor.  They change part 2 whilst a boat is suspended.   Thus from the moment they decide they are no longer trying to get to the next mark, through starting and stopping their motor, doing a 360 and until the moment they log starting racing again, they would be under colregs.  Thus they would be the give way vessel when using their motor.  Even when sailing whilst , their behaviour under colregs will be different than under RRS as they would be required to take early and substantial action (not ducking transoms).  I've also added X2(c) s that even if they are ROW under colregs, then they should attempt not to interfere, but if they have no other option then they may still be the stand on vessel and the racing boats will need to give way.


> A boat meeting another boat that was using their engine for propulsion would need to know if the boat was using their engine as permitted by rule 42.3(g) or rule 42.3(i) to know if the have to avoid the vessel under rule 22, or are the stand on vessel under IRPCAS. 

This is precisely the situation I'm trying to avoid.   A boat under motor should always be under colregs, but 42.3(i) does not say that and as the boat is still racing then Part 2 still applies unless a rule says otherwise.    If the boat is sailing under IRPCAS, then there can be some doubt in the minds of other boats... but the requirement to take early and significant action, together with X.2(c) should prevent such interactions as the boat that knows she is under IRPCAS will not sail close to the other racing boats.




Created: 24-Jun-09 02:02
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Greg, I think the introduction of the "suspension" concept is very confusing and agree with Mark, unnecessary. 

You write that they can suspend racing (which means to stop with the intention of reengaging and continuing later).  Then you state they are "considered racing" for everything except Part 2, replacing with other govt ROW rules. 

Why not simply mimic the wording in rule 23.1? ...
"If reasonably possible, a boat not racing shall not interfere with a boat that is racing."

Pre-start and between races, Rule 23.1 day-in and day-out already covers interactions between boats under power and boats racing only under-sail. People know what it means and have experience applying it. 

It's basically what John suggested without the IRPCAS. 

"SI #.# If reasonably possible, a boat that is racing and has engaged its engine to propel themselves as permitted by the rules, shall not interfere with a boat that is racing and has not engaged its engine."

Exact same language and format as 23.1 ... I think folk will understand it easily. 
Created: 24-Jun-09 12:27
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
PS ... Every Wed night from late April through August, Annapolis YC finishes > 120 boats in front of the club in the narrow Spa Creek .. with a drawbridge just past the FL. After racing, many boats engage their engines to exit the creek and successfully avoid the on-coming racing boats trying to finish.   There is no defined specific corridor for  the exiting boats ... we just do our best to not interfere.

image.png 3.48 MB
Created: 24-Jun-09 13:17
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
The primary task given to me by my Commodore was to provide a mechanism to allow a boat to suspend racing whilst they deal with some unforeseen circumstances, when they might break a few rules. My brief was to allow them to continue racing and to be able to set redress for those broken rules... maybe some time back if they were helping others. 

So the suspension is indeed not required just for motoring. However, once we have the concept of suspending racing and seeking redress for that, it made sense to me to use that first clarifying the use of the motor.

So I agree, 42.3(I) could be switched on without suspension, but I've been specifically asked to provide a suspension mechanism regardless of motoring. So it's not there just for motoring.

Consider the other example I gave, if a boat with a spinnaker snafu needing to sail through an out of bounds area to do that recovery. Currently they would then need to retire from the race due to the broken boundary rule.  I was asked to loosen up rrs62 so they could seek redress for that broken rule and continue racing.


P.S. With regards to the example of the Annapolis race, those boats have finished, so they are not under motor and racing at the same time. 
Created: 24-Jun-09 14:17
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
"I was asked to loosen up rrs62 so they could seek redress for that broken rule and continue racing"

You can change RRS 62. Add an (e). 

"SI #.# RRS 62 is changed with the addition of 62.1(e)) as follows: 62.1(e) Notwithstanding 62.1 and 62.1(a)-(c), a boat may request redress for A, B, C, etc. "

PS ... or maybe less wordy....

"SI #.# Notwithstanding 62.1 and 62.1(a)-(d), a boat may request redress for Examples A, B, C, etc." This changes RRS 62."
Created: 24-Jun-09 14:31
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
"P.S. With regards to the example of the Annapolis race, those boats have finished, so they are not under motor and racing at the same time. "

The point is the standard of "if reasonably possible ... a boat shall not interfere."

The RRS uses that same language between boats that are racing in 23.2 for specific situations. By applying this same language and concept used in both 23.1 and 23.1 you leverage the language and behaviors already mandated in the RRS, without introducing new concepts and frameworks. 
Created: 24-Jun-09 14:35
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
Angelo,

OK, let's try it your way:

X.1 Redress
Notwithstanding RRS 62.1(a)-(c), a boat may request redress for the breach of any rule, other than one of Part 2, for extraordinary or safety reasons, provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race. The sailing committee will, at its sole discretion, determine if the reason for seeking redress is valid and may consider all or part of any time taken under RRS 1.1 (Helping Those in Danger) to be excluded from a boat's elapsed time for the purposes of scoring. An alternative penalty may be applied for any broken rules, which may be no penalty. This alters RRS 62.

X.2 Use of Propulsion
A boat may use her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i), provided that an application for redress is made in accordance with X.1 and that the boat performs a 360-degree turn under sail after disengaging the propulsion. While under propulsion, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS. If reasonably possible, she shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.

It is certainly less wordy, but captures pretty much the same intent without suspension.   It does give less guidance as to how to make a good application for redress, but we can give some guidance in our seasons safety briefing that seeking redress without well logged details of their actions is unlikely to be successful.
I tried to find a way to invoke/alter RRS21/23, but ultimately it was simpler just to add the "shall not interfere" language to X.2

Thanks for persisting with your feedback!

Created: 24-Jun-09 22:31
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
 Greg:  allowing suspended racing with a more permissive set of reasons 

I think this approach has some difficulties. 

You have had what I think is good advice here that it is not within the RRS to 'suspend' racing because that impermissibly changes the Definition of racing. 

Trying to use Redress to exonerate or moderate penalties for breaking rules is taking Redress outside its conceptualisation in the RRS.  Redress is there to compensate a boat for a detriment: 

·        caused by a source outside herself, and 
·        not caused by any fault of her own. 

I don't think trying to extend the concept of redress outside these boundaries is wise. 

There are some other mechanisms to deal with problems, in particular the use of NP, protest only by the race committee and DP, discretionary penalties.  You can also use a general provision in your Penalties SI like: 

The protest committee may impose a penalty less than disqualification for a breach of any rule other than rule 2. 

In my opinion the whole 'blanket' approach to being 'permissive' about rules is problematic.  As Mark says, you seem to be essaying to solve 'problems' that will rarely occur, and taking a pretty radical approach to doing so. 

What I would suggest you do is go through your NOR/SI and flag all the ones that you think may be excessively onerous with NP, DP.  You could also put the Penalties less than disqualification SI in there. 
Created: 24-Jun-09 23:45
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
Rule 42.3(i), Propulsion: Exceptions, allows sailing instructions to state specific circumstances under which a boat may use an engine, or any other method of propulsion, provided she does not gain a significant advantage in the race. The RYA has an article about permitting use of an engine. 



Following are sailing instruction examples:

“When a boat uses her propulsion engine to get clear after [grounding] [or] [a collision], she need not retire, provided that she stops using her engine as soon as she is clear, but shall instead accept [a [ __%] scoring penalty calculated as in rule 44.3(c)] [a ____ penalty and notify the use of her engine to the race committee within the time limit for [protests] [declarations].”

"A boat may use her propulsion engine to get clear after [grounding] [or] [a collision] and shall stop using the engine for propulsion as soon as she is clear."

When a boat needs to avoid commercial shipping, or needs to comply with the IRPCAS or government rules to cross or depart from [a shipping channel, zone or lane] [the………], she may use her engine or manual propulsion to do so. When she initially gains a significant advantage from this propulsion, she may continue to use the propulsion to remove that advantage.

The boat shall report in writing to the [race] [protest] committee within the time limit for [protests] [declarations], stating the time when use of the engine or manual propulsion began, the course and speed made good under that propulsion and the time the propulsion ceased. [A copy will be posted on the official notice board.]

When a protest committee decides that the only infringement by a boat that is protested for breaking this rule was that she gained a significant advantage, the penalty will be at its discretion.



Created: 24-Jun-10 00:41
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
John,

I have most definitely received some good advice here, and hope I'm following as much of it as I can within my brief.  Thanks all, you have been very patient with me!

I'm fully on board with the critique of "suspending" racing.  The concept is gone from my drafts.

I too share some of your concerns that X.1 on redress is too permissive and we may expose ourselves to a range of ambit claims by competitors who think they had good reason to break a rule or who might try it on for a breach that was of no significant consequence.  I can see that using the DP approach would at least limit the rules that a competitor might seek a discretionary penalty on.     However, my brief is to allow for unforeseen circumstances and to mark a rule with DP will mean that we would have foreseen some potential problem.   The other issue I have with the DP approach is that there will still need to be a submission or declaration to the committee asking for the discretion to be applied, so we will need extra rules describing the application and time limits etc etc.  By piggybacking on the redress mechanism, I'm using an existing mechanism to put a question in front of the Committee.

Ultimately, I see the main issue of redress approach is that our committee might be asked to say "No" too often, with the risk there being that a given committee might be unwise in their use of discretion when they are not guided by more specific rules.    
However, unless a fundamental flaw is found, I think that it is a risk we are going to take. I see three possible outcomes:  
  1. the rule will never be used (Mark was right);  
  2. The rule will be used too often (John was wise - but at least we will gather knowledge about which of our rules should be DP or not);  
  3. It get's used once in a while for genuine unforeseen circumstances (Greg was lucky and everybody get's a pony!)

With regards to the X.2 Propulsion rule, I think it is broadly in line with the article Mark sent.

Thanks all for the help on this one.  The result might not be perfect, but it is certainly far better for the input from you all.

The final form that our SC has accepted is:

7.19 PROTESTS, ARBITRATION AND REDRESS
...
7.19.8 Notwithstanding RRS 62.1(a)-(c), a boat may request redress for the breach of any rule, other than one of Part 2, for extraordinary or safety reasons, provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race. The sailing committee will, at its sole discretion, determine if the reason for seeking redress is valid and may consider all or part of any time taken under RRS 1.1 (Helping Those in Danger) to be excluded from a boat's elapsed time for the purposes of scoring. An alternative penalty may be applied for any broken rules, which may be no penalty. This alters RRS 62.

7.20 USE OF PROPULSION
7.20.1 A boat may use her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i), provided that an application for redress is made in accordance with 7.19.8 and that the boat performs a 360-degree turn under sail after disengaging the propulsion. While under propulsion, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS. If reasonably possible, she shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.

cheers

Created: 24-Jun-10 04:45
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0

Another thing to remember is that when a boat uses an engine for propulsion they break rule 42. What you are doing is defining the penalty for that breach.

In order to give a boat redress it needs to be through no fault of her own. You will struggle to convince me that it is through no fault of her own that a boat needs to use her propulsion engine to get clear after grounding, a collision, to avoid commercial shipping, or to comply with the IRPCAS or government rules to cross or depart from a shipping channel, zone or lane.

Question. So how did you run aground?


Some more reading for you from the RYA regarding racing under the IRPCAS. 


Created: 24-Jun-10 05:40
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
Mark,

dang! you're right.  Adding a clause to 62.1 does not  turn off the no-fault-of-there-own part of the rule.
I'm beginning to agree with the wisdom of John that the best way to do that is a DP style annotation.

Thus what about the following:
The notation ‘[DP]’ in a rule means that the penalty for a breach of that rule may, at the discretion of the
protest committee, be less than disqualification. A boat that has broken such a rule, must provide a declaration to the Race Committee within the time limits set for protests.
The notation ‘[NP]’ in a rule of the NoR or Sailing Instructions (SIs) means that a boat may not protest another boat for breaking that rule. This changes RRS 60.1(a).

The editor of our handbook is going to kill me when I need to revise lots of NORs/SIs with this.  But hopefully most of these will be in our general conditions of racing.

I think we still want to activate 42.3(i) but will go with a declaration rather than redress:

7.20 USE OF PROPULSION
7.20.1 A boat that is racing may use her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i) to get to the starting area or for safety or extraordinary reasons, provided that the boat performs a 360-degree turn under sail after disengaging the propulsion.
7.20.2 If the propulsion was used after her start signal, then a declaration must be provided to the Race Committee within the time limits set for protests. This declaration should detail the reason, location, time, and duration of the propulsion.
7.20.3 The Race Committee, at its sole discretion, may impose a time or scoring penalty for use of propulsion.
7.20.4 [DP] While under propulsion, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS.
7.20.5 [DP] If reasonably possible, a boat using propulsion shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.

Thanks again for being persistent with your feedback!


















Created: 24-Jun-10 07:32
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mark re: "You will struggle to convince me that it is through no fault of her own that a boat needs to use her propulsion engine to get clear after grounding,"

IMO there is a big hole in the rules regarding grounding and redress and I actually put in a submission to change that (which was not accepted). 

Here is the issue as I see it ... 

A hard grounding is akin to "serious damage" IMO if a boat cannot extract themselves in a short period of time without an engine, in that it seriously impacts the ability of the boat to continue in the race. 

To further complicate the issue, boats can not see the shallow water with their eyes and different boats may have different drafts. Therefore a 6' depth might be an obstruction for one boat, but not another in handicap racing or when multiple fleets converge along the same shoreline. 

An inside boat at the shoreline not given room and run hard-aground can not ask for redress even if the outside boat is penalized by a PC for breaking rule 19.   You can also imagine a starboard boat being forced to tack to avoid a bad collision with a port boat as well.  I see this as a huge mismatch of consequences. 

Also, any damage may take the expense of a diver to discover ... and even if it's just paint, the cost of repair will include a haulout .. adding up quickly to >$500 expense. 

My submission, in a nutshell, added being grounded alongside physical damage in 62.1(b). 

Proposed 62.1 "(b) injury or , physical damage[, or being grounded] because of the action of a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 [...]"

This is all to say that I like the addition of grounding ... but with the caveat that it's as a result of another boat breaking a rule that she is not exonerated for. 
Created: 24-Jun-10 14:58
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Greg re: "dang! you're right.  Adding a clause to 62.1 does not  turn off the no-fault-of-there-own part of the rule."

That's why, in my SI, I specifically listed 62.1 by itself.  - Ang

"SI #.# Notwithstanding 62.1 and 62.1(a)-(d), a boat may request redress for Examples A, B, C, etc." This changes RRS 62."
Created: 24-Jun-10 15:04
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Greg .. here would be my suggested edits based on your last proposed wording .. (in line)

7.20 USE OF PROPULSION
7.20.1 A boat that is racing may use her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i)
(a) to get to the starting area [to get to within a distance of 50m to the starting line up until 1 minute before her starting signal] or
(b)  in accordance with RRS 42.3(i) for safety or [other] extraordinary reasons, provided that the boat performs a 360-degree turn under sail after disengaging the propulsion.
[This changes rule 42.]

7.20.2  [A boat using propulsion under SI 7.20.1 shall perform a 1-turn penalty as described in rule 44.2 after disengaging the propulsion.] A propulsion declaration must be provided to the Race Committee within the time limits set for protests. This declaration should [shall] detail the reason, location, time, and duration of the propulsion.
7.20.3 The Race Committee, at its sole discretion, may impose a time or scoring penalty for use of propulsion. [This changes rule A5.1]
7.20.4 [DP] While under propulsion, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS.
7.20.54 [DP] If reasonably possible, a boat using propulsion shall not interfere with a boat that is racing [and not likewise using propulsion].

Clean ...
7.20 USE OF PROPULSION
7.20.1 A boat that is racing may use her engine or other propulsion
(a) to get to within a distance of 50m to the starting line, up until 1 minute before her starting signal or
(b) for safety or other extraordinary reasons, in accordance with RRS 42.3(i).
This changes rule 42.

7.20.2 A boat using propulsion under SI 7.20.1 shall perform [take] a 1-turn penalty as described in rule 44.2 after [waiting a minimum of 10 seconds after] disengaging the propulsion. A propulsion declaration must be provided to the Race Committee within the protest time limit. This declaration shall detail the reason, location, time, and duration of the propulsion.

7.20.3 The Race Committee, at its sole discretion, may impose a time or scoring penalty for use of propulsion.  This changes rule A5.1.

7.20.4 [DP] If reasonably possible, a boat using propulsion shall not interfere with a boat that is racing and not likewise using propulsion.

FWIW ... I'm not a fan of putting this into the hands of the RC .. and out of the hands of the PC in a redress .. but that's JMO.
Created: 24-Jun-10 15:51
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
Angelo,

thanks for the further refinements.   But why alter 42?  42.3(i) allows the SIs to give additional reasons and my 7.20.1 is doing exactly that.  So what does your form actually change in 42?

I'm still going with IRPCAS, because if a boat under motor cannot reasonably avoid interfering with racing boats, then I don't like that the ROW is just not defined by RRS.  The preambles of part 2 allows such a substitution and I like that ROW is fully deterministic in all circumstances.

We don't want a declaration if propulsion used during pre-start.  This is a frequent occurrence and with your modifications to not allow it in the last minute, I think there is no need for the paperwork.

Perhaps amending 62.1 is workable as you say, but would probably be worthwhile actually saying something like "even at their own fault".    But I've already gone through entire handbook draft with [DP][NP] annotations and I do like that a lot more as it doesn't excuse any rule break, only specific ones.

Latest version:

7.20 USE OF PROPULSION
7.20.1 A boat that is racing may use her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i):
(a) to get to within a distance of 50m to the starting line, up until 1 minute before her starting signal or
(b) for safety or other extraordinary reasons.
7.20.2 A boat using propulsion under SI 7.20.1 shall take a 1-turn penalty as described in rule 44.2 after disengaging the propulsion.
7.20.3 A boat using propulsion under SI 7.20.1(b) shall provide a propulsion declaration to the Race Committee within the protest time limit. This declaration shall detail the reason, location, time, and duration of the propulsion.
7.20.4 The Protest Committee, at its sole discretion, may impose a time or scoring penalty for use of propulsion under 7.20.1(b). This changes rule A5.1
7.20.5 While under propulsion, the rules of Part 2 are replaced by the right-of-way rules of the IRPCAS.
7.20.6 [DP] If reasonably possible, a boat using propulsion shall not interfere with a boat that is racing.



Created: 24-Jun-10 23:09
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
Rule 86.1(a) prohibits changing rule 42. 

Rule J2.2 (8) requires you to include in the sailing instructions when and under what circumstances propulsion is permitted under rule 42.3(i);


Created: 24-Jun-10 23:19
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mark .. correct .. thanks. My head was getting hung-up on this idea of using the motor after the prep signal to get close to the starting area ... and that stuck in my brain as something outside 42.3(I) ... (as it's very unusual) ... kind'a got ahead of myself there. 

Greg, the above answers your question as well. Sorry for that. 

Ang
Created: 24-Jun-11 01:29
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
PS ... the reason I added the delay for the turn-penalty is you don't want someone speeding in at full power and speed, cut the engine and do a spin with the momentum from the engine ... as that's no "penalty" at all. 
Created: 24-Jun-11 01:32
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Greg re: "7.20.4 The Protest Committee, at its sole discretion, may impose a time or scoring penalty for use of propulsion under 7.20.1(b). This changes rule A5.1"

It only changes A5.1 if the RC applies the penalty without a hearing.  If you want the PC to get involved, you'll have to define a process. At this point, the report is only being filed with the RC .. so procedurally it never gets to the PC as there is no hearing request. 

So, you can change your 7.20.4 back to RC (and keep the note about changing A5.1) ... or you need to go back to a PC procedure like leveraging the existing redress framework.  
Created: 24-Jun-11 01:38
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
0
Rule 42.3(i) allows the sailing instructions to permit propulsion using an engine or any other method, provided the boat does not gain a significant advantage in the race.


In 7.20.1(a) a boat cannot use their engine if they are late for their start as they would be gaining an advantage.

Maybe word as follows
(a) provided a boat is not late for their start, to get to within a distance of 50m to the starting line, up until 1 minute before her starting signal, or
Created: 24-Jun-11 06:17
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
1
The thing I don’t like about IRPCAS is that it isn’t clear what rules apply. If the engine is in gear IRPCAS applies, take it out of gear RRS apply. 

Suggest using: 

A boat using her engine or other propulsion in accordance with RRS 42.3(i) shall, if possible, avoid a boat that is not.
Created: 24-Jun-11 08:51
P
Greg Wilkins
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • Club Judge
0
Mark, 
There may be some doubt about if the engine is in gear, but doubt is nothing new in the rules. There is often doubt about if overlap exists, if a zone has been entered, if a boat has gone through head to wind, if another boat is racing, etc.  Ultimately there is a reality and even if it can't be known, somebody can establish facts found and determine which boat is ROW in that probable reality.

What if it's not possible to avoid another boat? If both boats are under part 2, then there is no answer.  Facts can be found and no matter how close to reality they are, there may still be no answer to who was right of way. 

The benefit of IRPCAS is that the boat putting their engine into gear knows that at that instance they need to be well away from there other boats in a way that is well defined by rules, precedents and centuries of experience.  Engines go into and out of gear all the time under IRPCAS, changing ROW instantly, but the rules deal with it by not letting boats get close enough in the first place for it to be a problem.

On the other hand, what does "avoid" mean. Centimetres? Meters? Boat lengths?

A technique I use often use for such things is to imagine giving testimony to a hypothetical coroner after a hypothetical fatal accident.  So I'd have to explain why I thought that asking a boat to only "avoid" another boat was better than asking then to respect the well established rules for the prevention of collisions at sea!



Created: 24-Jun-11 12:27
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
1
I think COLREGS applies to a boat propelled by her motor whether we like it or not. 
 
Juno v Endeavour says 
 
… by entering a regatta with sailing instructions which unambiguously set forth special, binding “rules of the road,” the participants waive conflicting COLREGS and must sail in accordance with the agreed-upon rules 
 
The RRS apply to sailing boats (Introduction, Terminology).  RRS 42 forbids boats from using motor propulsion while racing. 
 
The RRS do not contemplate situations where a boat racing is being propelled by machinery, apart from permitting it in certain limited circumstances.  In my opinion, it follows that there is no conflict between the RRS and COLREGS in this regard, therefore COLREGS Rule 18(a)(iv) applies and a boat that is a power driven vessel and is required to keep out of the way of a sailing vessel. 
 
Any 'confusion' on the part of other boats about whether a boat is being propelled by her motor or not is (at least hypothetically) resolved by COLREGS Rule 25(e) which requires a sailing vessel being propelled by machinery to display an inverted cone day signal.  In any case, I think the problem is a bit fanciful.  The preponderance of obligation is on the power driven vessel to keep out of the way of the sailing vessel and take early and positive action to do so:  that will, in effect mean that the sailing boat is keeping clear.  This is particularly so when coupled with a SI requiring a boat propelled by her motor to avoid interfering with other boats, which would mean that she would be required, if possible, to manoeuvre so that other boats did not need to take action to comply with any obligations they may have under COLREGS as a stand on vessel. 
 
The requirement of RRS 22 for all boats, if possible, to avoid a boat that is trying to help a person or vessel in danger represents a 'carve-out' or exception to the COLREGS requirement.  I don't think that invalidates the general application of COLREGS Rule 18(a)(iv). 
Created: 24-Jun-11 21:59
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John .. re" " ..  to display an inverted cone day signal"

Uhhh .. let me see here .. now where did I stow that stink'n inverted cone day signal?  :-)
Created: 24-Jun-18 21:14
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
1
Ang, I understand that in the UK an alternative interpretation of that signal is 'I have an RYA Seamanship Examiner on board.
Created: 24-Jun-18 22:31
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more