He was racing.  He will be scored OCS, but he's a competitor until he crosses the finishing line.

Is RAF still in place? I thought RAF was removed from RRS 2013-2016, is it back?

In the unlikely event the competitor knew that she was OCS and continued to race, she could be challenged for unsportsmanlike conduct (case ) allowing you to request redress under RRS (d).  But if she did not know, then she is racing under the definition until she .  The rules apply to her (and you) during the race and it is up to the race committee to score her properly (which is OCS).

Although it is improbable, it is by rules possible (unless there is a time limit to start by Racing Instructions) that the OCS boat returns to the pre-start side and correct its premature start. Your decision was correct. Aslan: RAF wasn't remove as a scoring in the new rules, but the abbreviation was replaced by RET. To all Members: I have committed a huge mistake, Because an error I marked down in Paul Zupan without intention. I´m really sorry. Your comment is perfect for me. My apologise.

 Don't forget that you also have to clear the finish line. You're not done when the whistle goes off. Also the rules of Part 2 apply when boats intend to race, are racing or have been racing.




Hi Liam, what redress did she get if she was OCS and was her bow damage serious enough that she couldnt get across the finish line?

Paul Zupan wrote: "In the unlikely event the competitor knew that she was OCS and continued to race, she could be challenged for unsportsmanlike conduct (case 34) allowing you to request redress under RRS 62.1(d). But if she did not know, then she is racing under the definition Racing until she finishes. The rules apply to her (and you) during the race and it is up to the race committee to score her properly (which is OCS)."

I think Case 34 does not apply here. According to the facts Liam explained ([I] realised that I would not clear a starboard boat in another fleet. I probably dithered for a second too long before tacking again and of course he bore off and clipped my stern), the starboard boat never hindered the port boat, neither deliberately caused damages, in fact she tried to avoid contact by bearing away, but failed.

Since Liam admitted not tacking soon enough to keep clear of the starboard boat, Redress would not probably be given, because one of the requirements is not met: "no fault of her one".

The answer to Liam's question can be found in the principle enshrined in Case 68. "... The principles of sportsmanship require a boat to take a penalty when she realizes that she has broken a rule, but if she continues racing she retains her rights under the racing rules, including her rights under the rules of Part 2 and her rights to protest and appeal. The rules of Part 2 govern all boats that are racing, whether or not one of them is later disqualified for some reason."

Liam failed to keep clear and to avoid contact under RRS 10 & 14. According to RRS 44.1(b) Liam was required to retire only if the damage on the boats was "serious", otherwise a Two-Turns penalty would be enough.