Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Issue (and patch) with the new RRS 60.4 (double negatives and Boolean logic)
1
Being a Professor of Computer Science, forum member Ric Crabbe spotted this logic-process-error right away when we were first reading the Yellow Paper in late 2023 (too many if, then, else statements for one lifetime I'm sure .. LOL)
US Sailing Judge's Committee has recently sent out a bulletin about this issue in it's newsletter 'Rule 68'. I think it's important for Judges and RO's to take note of the issue and their suggested "patch" via NOR/SI mods.
Below is the message from Wayne Balsinger et'al regarding the issue as it appears in the US Sailing Judges Newsletter, 'Rule 68'
US Sailing Judge's Committee has recently sent out a bulletin about this issue in it's newsletter 'Rule 68'. I think it's important for Judges and RO's to take note of the issue and their suggested "patch" via NOR/SI mods.
Below is the message from Wayne Balsinger et'al regarding the issue as it appears in the US Sailing Judges Newsletter, 'Rule 68'
Rule 60.4 Protest Validity Issue:
There are still some unintended consequences with the2025-2028 Rules. One issue is with Rule 60.4(a)(2), which applies to protests when you see anincident but are not involved in it. The current rule makes that protest invalid. Currently, rule 60.4(a)(2) prohibits “third-party protests,” which is contrary to what the ruleshave permitted for a long time, and contrary to the Basic Principle: Sportsmanship and theRules, which tells competitors they are expected to enforce the rules.
The US Sailing Racing Rules Committee proposes a change that may take effect on January 1,2026. However, you can use that language now in your Notice of Race or Sailing Instructions to restore sailors’ ability to protest a “third party” issue.
60.4 Protest Validity in the 2025 Rules:
(a) A protest is invalid
(2) if it is from a boat that alleges a breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31, but she was not involved in it, or did not see the incident, or
The logic of 60.4(a) is complex and contains double negatives that are hard to interpret. A careful read of rule 60.4(a)(2) says that a protest is “invalid” if the boat “was not involved in it ”OR “did not see the incident.” So, if either one of those criteria is true, then the protest is invalid. This means that if a boat is not involved in an incident, her protest should be found invalid, whether or not she saw the incident. This is a significant and unintentional change in protest validity.
For example, Boat A touches a mark and does not take a penalty. There is no related Part 2incident. A couple of boat lengths behind A, Boat B sees A hit the mark and files a protest. Even if boat B’s protest complies with the requirements of 60.4(a)(1), the current wording of60.4(a)(2) means that this protest should be found invalid because, even though B saw the incident, she was not involved in it. The problem is that many protests valid under the 2021-2024 Racing Rules will no longer be valid under the 2025-2028 Racing Rules.
We feel strongly that this is a MAJOR PROBLEM. We recommend implementing this change immediately. To remedy this, include the following in your Notice of Race or Sailing Instructions:
1.x - Rule 60.4(a)(2) is changed as follows: (2) if it alleges a breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 and is from a boat that was not involved in, and did not see, the incident, or
As noted, this is the same language the US Sailing Rules Committee is submitting to World Sailing to fix in 2026. However, you are encouraged to use it in 2025.
By Wayne Balsiger, Chair, Judges’ Committee; Dave Perry, Chair, Appeals Committee; Peter Wilson, Chair, Rules Committee; and Mark Townsend, Chair of the Judges Training and Testing Subcommittee
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
I've read this 20 times, and I can conclude that if a boat was not involved in the incident but saw it, her protest is invalid. Really??
I don't think that's what they want to convey. Maybe too many negatives there. Might they mean...
A protest from a boat alleging a breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31 is invalid unless it was involved in the incident or saw it. (?) I think that's more straightforward and less convoluted language.
Or maybe the original wording, but ".. but she was neither involved in it nor did she see it."
Or maybe, "... she was not involved in it and did not see it." Simpler.
Thoughts?
"a boat that alleges a breach of a rule of Part 2 but was not involved in it, or rule 31 but did not see the incident"
Your language makes protesting a part 2 violation you observed but were not involved with invalid.
Right, then I agree with Philip...
"a boat that alleges a breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31, but she was neither involved in, nor did she see the incident"
The rule should be:
60.4 Protest Validity
(a) A protest is invalid
(1) if it does not comply with the definition Protest or rule 60.2 or 60.3,
(2) if it is from a boat that alleges a breach of a rule of Part 2 or rule 31, but she was not involved in it (no comma here!) or did not see the incident, or
(3) as far as it alleges a breach of rule 69 or a Regulation referred to in rule 6, unless permitted by the Regulation concerned.
(Confession, I spent my career writing software so I am very aware of the problems with 'and' vs 'or' and the order of parsing things.)
who is to say this was not the intent of the committee preparing the new Rules. who are we to say they were wrong. We do not want more hearings, it is taking the fun out of the sport.
Absolutely, positively, 100% NOT.
Boats are not allowed to enter into rule breaking compacts, immune from protest by other boats that witness the rules breach.
In fleet racing, when a boat breaks a rule, she gains an advantage vs all boats on the field, not just the boats directly impacted by the incident.
Also, if a boat touches a mark, there might be no other boat involved in the incident.
"Competitors in the sport of sailing are governed by a body of rules that they are expected to follow and enforce."
Well, it's a good catch. Not sure what the best fix is. Probably something on the region of Philip's suggestion.
I have another question - just out of interest...
Give examples of cases where a boat was involved but did not see the incident.
I can only think of 1, but there must be more otherwise why not just drop the 'not involved' part?
(Can someone link to US Sailing's official output on this for my library?)
I think their language works fine so assuming it gets accepted, might be useful to use USSRC's wording in the meantime.
In this case, if the intention is to retain the intention of the former Rule 60.1(a), the first 'or' in the new 60.4(a) (1) simply needs to be changed to 'and'.
Adding a comma before the first 'or' doesn't change the meaning. The generally accepted interpretation of sub-clauses within commas, at least in British English, is that the sentence should still make sense with that sub-clause removed. If one follows that logic the US Sailing suggestion doesn't stand up to in-depth questioning. And, while the neither/nor option works, it may contain too many negatives to be easily translated into other languages and retain its correct meaning.
yes, you're right, we can observe this double negative sentence in other rules also (18..). It's difficult yo understand. ANd with " a protest is “invalid” if the boat “was not involved in it ”OR “did not see the incident, is it a inclusive or exclusive "Or" operator.....
When it is posted, it can be found here: https://www.ussailing.org/competition/rules-officiating/judges/
Scroll down to almost the bottom .. you will see links for past newsletters and meeting minutes.
A boat on the outside of a 3 or more boat pinwheel at the leeward mark. Inside boat touches the mark.
(of course, in the above case, I'd imagine the outside boat wouldn't be in any hurry to protest the inside boat)
Perhaps a start line up at con boat end.
Apart from those I can't think of any more.
As for solution. Can't a simple and/or switch fix things?