Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

Rounding Marks?

Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
SI's contain the following statements:
  • Under MARKS, "The Rounding Marks are described in [reference document]" The reference document is not specific to the race so it doesn't describe sequence or required sides, just describes the position and characteristics of permanent marks for the racing area. The reference document also refers to all marks as "common marks" or "permanent marks", not as rounding marks)
  • Under COURSES, "All Marks will be rounded to port."

Does this make all of the marks on the race course chart rounding marks? Or does the SI have to designate specific marks as rounding marks?

Does it make a difference if, due to the geometry of the course, some of them would have to be looped in order to meet the string rule? Considering this diagram in the context of the SIs, does the orange track for course A-B-C-D-A (which I think is the course intended by the RC) comply with Rule 28? Does the green track? Or only the blue track that loops mark B?

image.png 35.8 KB
Created: 19-Sep-29 01:43

Comments

P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
J2.1 (emphasis added)
The sailing instructions shall include the following information: (5) 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 rule 28.2);

... and US103
Created: 19-Sep-29 01:55
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Yes, but...do the SI statements cited in my original post constitute identifying all of the marks as rounding marks?  

I don't think that's what the RC intended to do but arguably that's what they did. 
Created: 19-Sep-29 02:06
Phil Mostyn
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
0
Hi Tim,

I'd like to see the "reference document" before finalising my comclusion, but from your description it seems possible that the marks identified in the said document are all "rounding" marks and rounding (not passing) is meant to apply to all courses using any of those marks. What do you think?
Created: 19-Sep-29 02:30
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
“Common” and “permanent” seem to me to be there just to help visual ID (as opposed to “inflatable” or “temporary”) so I don’t think their presence changes anything. 

The SI’s are just poorly formatted (or even lazy).  

Based on what you presented, they are all rounding marks. 

I had SI’s in the past that had “all marks are rounding marks” type of language, but we also had predefined courses that were checked for string-rule-sanity. That’s pretty nuts. 

Just think of what happens when the boats tack midway thru with others coming. 
Created: 19-Sep-29 03:10
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
Appendix L 9.2 indicates rounding marks are to be specifically named only when not obvious from the course diagram. Unless B is an island described in the reference document, in my view the course diagram provided makes clear that B is a passing mark while A and B are rounding marks. Simply leave B to port after rounding A and proceeding to C to round it. No race committee sets a course that requires you to do a small radius 360 degs circle around a mark. Is B an island? If B is an island then I would expect the SI's to make clear whether it had to be rounded or not. My club in Sydney makes this clear in relation to Cockatoo Island for some courses. Is there an area beyond B towards the top of the diagram where depth or traffic make it problematic for racing? In my view, if B is simply a post, channel mark or buoy or some other small diameter object then common sense says you just pass it. (In my view it operates like a cardinal mark - keep to one side of it and don't go to the other side)
Created: 19-Sep-29 03:18
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Paul, I don’t think a competitor can use the suggested SI language in Appx L to interpret SI’s.  Appx L is addressed to Committees only a guide on how to write the docs.  Appx J contains the requirements for the docs. The SI’s are the req’s for the sailors. 

If everyone sailed the same course, no problem. If some sailed blue and some green, then we have a pickle. 

The SI’s seem clear to me. They state “round” 2x.  in “rounding marks” and “rounded to port”.  B is a rounding mark, therefore blue is the proper course. 

It’s the RC’s apparent error and they could abandon the race based on the “safety and fairness of the competition”, but I think that would depend on the % of boats on each course.  Same goes with the PC.

Created: 19-Sep-29 12:15
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Tim, I’m rereading your OP.  Are you suggesting that the SI’s did not list the order of Marks’s and only showed the diagram with the orange line?
Created: 19-Sep-29 13:57
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
The SIs do list the order of marks, and the marks are all permanently moored spar buoys. 

I agree that as long as all boats interpret the course the same way it's not a problem, but as soon as one boat loops and others don't  the RC has a dilemma. I saw a case somewhere, can't find it at the moment, that said if all boats make the same error in sailing the course due to an ambiguity, the appropriate redress is to award finishing places to all boats. 
Created: 19-Sep-29 14:41
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
OK .. just to be clear then .. the SI's listed the order of marks as (A) - B -C - D - A  .. all to be rounded to port (I put first A in parens as usually you don't list the starting mark) AND the SI's had a drawing showing the orange line? .. OR no drawing and just the list of marks to be rounded in order and the ref to the external doc for "Rounding Marks?
Created: 19-Sep-29 15:05
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
No, there's no course drawing. There are several random leg courses all described by listing the marks. And yes, in my representation, A is the start-finish line. 

The only references to "rounding marks" are the two statements in my original post. The external document doesn't refer to the marks as rounding marks, just as marks. 
Created: 19-Sep-29 15:16
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
OK .. well . then the RC made a mistake when they posted the course unfortunately.  We usually have Red and Green letter boards so that an (A) - Bg - C - D - A  could be called.  Otherwise if that was their intent, then it should have been posted (A) - C - D - A  since the SI's do not provide any provision for non-rounding marks (passing marks).  Based on what you posted, it seems clear that they are all rounding marks and course Blue is the course.  

As far as everybody sailing the same course and letting the race stand, I think that from the RC POV that is fine, but better I think that the RC could file a redress on behalf of the entire fleet, knowing that they had made an error that could have effected the fairness (as the RC isn't setup to take information from the competitors in a fair and open way).  

In the PC-redress hearing, the PC could take testimony to see if any boats sailed a longer course because they doubled-back or over-stood due to the confusion and thus were disadvantaged and decide from there what if anything to do.
Created: 19-Sep-29 15:25
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
This brings us to an interesting ethical question. 

If the RRS Basic Principal of “Sportsmanship” and Rule 2 taken together mean that a sailor who knows they’ve broken a rule must take a penalty, what obligations are upon the RC if they know they made an error that could have effected the fairness of the competition?  

Should the RC stay mum and see if anyone complains or requests redress (leave it up to the sailors to bring up the issue in a lean-back posture) or is there an ethical obligation for the RC to lean-forward into the issue and request redress for boats or the fleet?
Created: 19-Sep-29 17:25
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
I think if RC knows they made an error that affected the fairness of the competition and there might be way to correct it to make the results more fair to all competitors the RC has a duty to proactively request redress.  

The trouble is when correcting the error to make the results more fair for some boats results in unfairness (or perceived unfairness) for others. You potentially wind up with a cascading series of requests for redress from the previous decision. In that case it's probably best left alone.
Created: 19-Sep-29 18:28
Greg Dargavel
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
The only thing defined in RRS is "mark". All the other adjectives like passing, permanent, common, rounding have no specified meaning. If everything in the SIs is quoted in your question, there is no course...... so I'd say they have no race. If the RC has also said in the SIs that the course is ABCDA, all four coloured tracks have followed the sequence and kept marks to port. All colours sailed the course.
Created: 19-Sep-29 18:41
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
But Greg, RRS 28.2 includes a requirement that the "string" when drawn taut touch any mark that has been defined as a rounding mark - so the designation as a rounding mark has meaning in the rules. If B is a rounding mark then the orange and green strings don't touch B and a boat that sails those tracks has not sailed the course.

US Sailing appeal 103 says that if the SIs don't identify which marks are rounding marks (which is required by J2.1(5)) then none of them are rounding marks. But my problem with the SIs I cited is they might be interpreted to identify all of the marks as rounding marks. I'm not sure if that was the RC's intent or if it's just sloppy language (suspect the latter).
Created: 19-Sep-29 18:56
Greg Dargavel
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
I was a national race officer for many years before I focussed on judging, so I won't slag the RC for this event as a matter of courtesy. However, were I the PC chair on this event and was consulted before the SIs were published (a necessary practice in my world), I would have much to say in private. Re: the string.... pull it tight ("when drawn taut" in RRS 28.2) on all 3 colours and you end up with the marks in the middle. Blue also strangles a mark, but blue never takes that mark to starboard. Blue has no need to unwind. 
Created: 19-Sep-29 19:04
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
"Marks in the middle" is necessary but not sufficient if B is a rounding mark. String must touch when drawn taut and only the blue track does. Case 90 says that as long as the string passes a mark on the required side it may also pass on the non-required side so looping B is the correct action.

This discussion actually relates to an event I'll be competing in soon. I sent a note to the regatta chair pointing out the issue and suggesting some minor amendments to the SIs would fix it. Hopefully they'll do that.

Seemed like a better course of action than keeping it in my pocket and using it to DSQ a bunch of fellow competitors...  ;-)
Created: 19-Sep-29 19:10
Greg Dargavel
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
Tim, I'm having trouble seeing your point... "String must touch when drawn taut and only the blue track does." ......AHH I think I've figured your thinking. For the orange and green strings, you are interpreting that when the string is pulled tight from A to C, A and C don't move and the string won't touch B. However, the drawn taut phrase is used to create a "lasso" around the marks which is then pulled tight. All marks (on this example) thereby are pulled to the middle and touched by the imaginary string. If the RC wanted to bring the racers close aboard B (like the orange course) they need to have something "outside" of B which must be passed to starboard. It could be a gate or some other mark taken to starboard in a position which "drives" the fleet tight to B.
Created: 19-Sep-29 20:23
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Greg, as Tim said and I quoted in my first comment. ...

J2.1 (emphasis added)
The sailing instructions shall include the following information: (5) 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 rule 28.2);
Created: 19-Sep-30 01:16
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Two cases may be of interest

RYA Case RYA2000-05
Rule 28.2, Sailing the Course
When the sailing instructions state that a mark is to be rounded, boats shall do so, even if the intentions of the race committee were otherwise. However, a boat that did not do so for good safety reasons would be entitled to redress.
The string in rule 28.2 is to be taken to lie, when taut, in navigable water only.
When a mark to be rounded is too close to the rhumb line from the previous mark to the next mark for a boat to be able to decide visually whether it has to be looped, a boat that does not loop it and is successfully protested is entitled to redress.
However, she will not be entitled to redress if the marks are charted and the boat can be expected to carry charts that will show that the mark can be rounded only by looping it.

CAN Appeal CAN74
Rule 28.1, Sailing the Course
Rule 62.1(a), Redress
Rule 63.1, Requirement for a Hearing
Rule 64.2, Decisions on Redress
Sailing instructions should be written and courses designated to ensure that there is clear distinction between rounding and passing marks.
A protest decision and hearing must be limited to a particular incident that has been described in the protest. Without a hearing a boat may not be penalized for failing to sail the course.

(2) ‘Looping’ marks.
RCs should never set courses so that the taut string in rule 28.1 crosses over itself at any rounding mark since this would put boats in the same or different races at unnecessary hazard with each other in their rounding manoeuvres.

Rule J2.1 does not require rounding marks to be listed, provided that the geometry of a course diagram or the charted positions of marks 'identifies' rounding marks.

The race committee certainly has a problem.  it has included a dumb, unnecessary stock paragraph in it's SI.

The race committee does NOT have a problem 'as soon as one boat loops and others don't'.

Leave the racing to the racers.  The race committee is never required to protest any boat

Case 39

Sportsmanship and the RulesRule 60.2(a), Right to Protest; Right to Request Redress or Rule 69 Action
A race committee is not required to protest a boat. The primary responsibility for enforcing the rules lies with the competitors.

Neither does a race committee have a 'proactive duty' to request redress for boats.  Rule 60.2b says a race committee may request redress for a boat.

For the race committee to abandon the race would be a really bad solution.  It would deprive boats that did sail the correct course of their well-earned results and it would deprive the boats that sailed the other version of the course of their 'order of merit' among themselves.

In the first place don't flounder around with what the race committee intended, or what competitors thought the race committee meant.  First of all, in the warm dry protest room, decide what is the course specified in the SI.  Only if the SI are completely ambiguous and unable to be construed to specify a single course, should the race be abandoned.

Second, make sure that you deal with protests against boats for not sailing the course first:  until these boat's are disqualified, they cannot be given redress for any 'confusion' arising from the SI because their recorded place or score has not been made significantly worse.  In other words, starting with a request for redress, without any protests can cause more harm than good.

Steps for the protest committee might be:

  1. Decide what the 'right' course is.
  2. hear protests against all boats alleged to have sailed the wrong course, and disqualify those that did.  This will provide revised placings 1 to n for the boats that sailed the correct course.
  3. Consider whether there was an improper action or omission by the race committee.
  4. Consider redress for the disqualified boats:  were they genuinely confused or misled by the SI?
  5. If so, the protest committee may find that these boats have had a fair race among themselves, all going around the 'wrong' course and have established a 'finishing order among themselves, discernible from the results sheets.
  6. Give redress to these boats by scoring them n+2, n+2 ... etc.
Created: 19-Sep-30 12:48
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John A .. 
 Second, make sure that you deal with protests against boats for not sailing the course first:  until these boat's are disqualified, they cannot be given redress for any 'confusion' arising from the SI because their recorded place or score has not been made significantly worse.  In other words, starting with a request for redress, without any protests can cause more harm than good. Steps for the protest committee might be:  ....

That's a good suggestion.  On your steps #5 and #6, I get that you are temporarily splitting them into 2 groups and order them, but you are loosing me on how one would properly fold them back into the mix to a fair unified result.  Can you elaborate?
Created: 19-Oct-01 20:08
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
If I read John correctly I think the sequence is this:

Disqualify all boats that didn't sail the course correctly (as determined by the PC) 

Boats that did sail the course correctly are scored in their finishing places (discounting DSQ boats) 

If the PC determines that the SIs were ambiguous, grant redress to DSQ boats. Redress to be scored finishing places after the last boat to sail the course correctly in order of finish. 

So if 10 boats sail the correct course and 5 do not, boats that sailed correctly place 1-10. Those that didn't are 11-15, in their order of finish amongst the five. 

Not a super clean solution but better than abandoning I think. 
Created: 19-Oct-01 20:35
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Yes.  Tim's got it.

Except remember that the protest committee can only disqualify boats that have been validly protested.
Created: 19-Oct-01 22:19
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
If the sailing instructions were truly "ambiguous" why should the boats which sailed one of the two courses that were likely to have been understood be penalised (by all being assigned finishing places after all boats who sailed another course that was equally likely to be reasonably understood from the sailing instructions) for sailing that course, given it was a course in compliance with the SI's. Ambiguous means that either course was compliant. Once the SI's are truly ambiguous then neither course can be preferred just because the RC didn't communicate properly in the SI's. The SI's have to stand alone, although a compulsory skippers briefing that described the course in detail could add to the difficulty. If the SI's were truly ambiguous then the smart sailors who sailed a shorter complying course and finished earlier should do well! (ambiguous: open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning)
Created: 19-Oct-01 23:51
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
'Ambiguous' can have two meanings:

ambiguous • \am-BIG-yuh-wus\ • adjective. 1 a : doubtful or uncertain especially from obscurity or indistinctness b : incapable of being explained, interpreted, or accounted for : inexplicable 2 : capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways.

Paul and I are talking about truly, or completely ambiguous, (sense b or c above) in which case I previously said

... only if the SI are completely ambiguous and unable to be construed to specify a single course, should the race be abandoned.

Tim is loosely using the word in the first sense (sense a), which I would prefer to call 'confusing'.

As I said above, if the protest committee, in the warm dry protest room, can decide what is the course specified in the SI, then they can disqualify validly protested boats and possibly give redreess.

If the protest committee cannot decide what the 'right' course was, no matter how hard they try, then they can abandon the race, or just possibly, if there were two possible iterpretations, and one set of boats sailed each possible course, then the protest committee might, just might, give each set of boats places 1, 2, 3, etc according to their finishing sequence among the set of boats that sailed each course.

Note that in this case, it is unnecessary to disqualify any boats, because, arguably every boat except the first place boat has had her score made worse. 
Created: 19-Oct-02 01:45
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
I think I'm using "ambiguous" in the second sense - capable of being understood in more than one way.

As this thread has demonstrated, using the term "round" in a casual way referring to all marks without explicitly identifying any specific marks as "rounding marks" can be interpreted as all marks being rounding marks, no marks being rounding marks, or only those marks that are clearly identifiable as rounding marks from the course diagram are rounding marks. 

Better I think to make the SIs unambiguous before the race so this discussion doesn't keep the PC from their cocktails. 
Created: 19-Oct-02 03:20
Greg Dargavel
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
  • National Judge
0
I assume that Tim's last sentence has tongue firmly in cheek at the end. However, I strongly support the key idea. Regardless of the level of the event, the RC  must strive to create SIs which are clear and concise ( it is amazing how many SIs are developed without reference to Appendix L). Events should have a PC chair established well before the event so that the Race Officer and Protest Chair can consult on intent/wording. Yes the SIs "belong" to the RC, but few Race Officers what to loose cocktail time to protest/request for redress circles as illustrated in this thread.
Created: 19-Oct-02 13:33
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Well it's a good news story. As I mentioned my original question stemmed from an actual upcoming event, and the regatta chair has indicated they plan to amend the SIs to remove the potential ambiguity. 
Created: 19-Oct-02 13:41
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
Tim, did they tell you what they actually intended re mark B? Was it simply to be a passing mark to keep boats to one side of it or did they have some other intention?
Created: 19-Oct-03 02:01
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
loo at this case.
1985 4.docx 60 KB
Created: 19-Oct-08 12:49
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mike B, your case-link did not work.  - Ang
Created: 19-Oct-08 15:18
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
1985 4 v2.docx 28.4 KB
Created: 19-Oct-08 15:28
P
Michael Butterfield
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Judge
  • International Umpire
  • International Race Officer
0
1985 4 v2.docx 28.4 KB

RYA 1985/4
Definitions, Finish 
Rule 28.2, Sailing the Course 
Rule A5, Scores Determined by the Race Committee
Appendix J, 2.1(5), Notice of Race and Sailing 
Instructions: Sailing Instructions Contents

A race committee is not entitled to score a boat DNF because it believes she did not correctly sail the course; instead it must protest her under rule 28.

When a race committee intends a mark to be looped, the mark must be identified as a rounding mark. When the sailing instructions do not do so, or when they are
 
ambiguous, a boat may elect not to round a mark when she can still leave it on the required side and in the correct order.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
The course set by the race committee was A – B – C –
D - finish, all marks to port.

The race committee’s intention was that D was to be looped, but Deva sailed directly from mark B to the finishing line. In doing so she left marks C and D to port. The sailing instructions did not identify D or any mark as a rounding mark. The race committee scored Deva DNF, as she had not rounded D, which it intended to be the last mark, Deva sought redress. The protest committee refused redress on the grounds that Deva had not sailed the course, and referred its decision to the RYA.

DECISION
The decision of the protest committee is reversed. Deva
is to be reinstated.

Deva
finished, as defined, because she crossed the finishing line from the course side. The race committee acted improperly in scoring her DNF (see rule A5) and the protest committee should have re-instated her in her finishing position.

The only method of validly seeking to deprive Deva of her finishing place would have been for her to be protested under rule 28.2. However, any such protest should not have succeeded in this case.

When a race committee intends that a mark is to be looped, so that a boat continuing from that mark will cross her own track, the sailing instructions must either clearly say that the mark is a rounding mark, or must state how a mark shown on a course board is to be identified as a rounding mark.

When a mark is not properly identified as a rounding mark, a boat is entitled to sail a course such that the string representing her track, when drawn taut, does not touch the mark, provided that she leaves it on the correct side and in the correct sequence. The identification of a mark as a rounding mark must be unambiguous. For instance, to state that a mark is to be left to port (or starboard) gives a boat the option not to round it.

Request for Redress by Deva, Island SC

image.png 14.3 KB
Created: 19-Oct-08 15:30
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Paul, as it turns out the RC did not intend for all of the marks to be rounding marks, they intended for the green and orange tracks in my original diagram to be valid courses.

I agree with Michael's cited case, but the key in that case is "The sailing instructions did not identify D or any mark as a rounding mark."  My issue in asking this question is that I felt the original SIs for this event "kind of, sort of" might have been interpreted to identify all marks as rounding marks, or they might not have, and the intent of the RC was not clear from the original text of the SIs. Better to clarify before the event rather than after when somebody is bound to wind up unhappy with the decision.

They amended the SIs to remove reference to "rounding marks", saying instead that all marks were to be passed to port.


Created: 19-Oct-08 16:00
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Interesting.  We now have several Appeals to look at ..

RYA 1985/4 (above)
US 103
RYA 2000/5
CAN 74


In the USA, the RC did not intend the mark to be looped, but also did not ID any of the marks as rounding marks.
In the RYA, "The race committee’s intention was that D was to be looped", but did not ID any of the marks as rounding marks.
In the CAN, they make the comment that 'looping marks' should never be set (in contrast to the RYA Appeal in which the loop was intentional).

The cases are definitive that unless designated as such, marks with a side indicated are not rounding marks.  The RYA 1985/4 is more applicable to Tim's scenario, as it contemplates the possibility that a looped course could actually be the intended course.  The CAN appeal would lend a competitor to see a loop as an error and likely unintentional.

RC's are lucky when all boats do the same thing.  That said, even if they do, there is still a chance that some boats are disadvantaged by justifiably sailing the rhumb-line to the next mark, when the leg in question is a reach and thus maybe letting boats slip by to leeward .. and just by sailing a longer course.  This could easily happen when the distances are long and the boats are sailing on mark bearings or GPS at the beginning of the leg.

Created: 19-Oct-08 16:09
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
My point is that in order to avoid confusion the SIs, if they mean to identify marks as rounding marks, should be explicit. The phrase "the following marks are rounding marks" or "all marks are rounding marks is preferable to the phrase "marks are to be rounded to port/starboard" unless you really mean to identify marks as rounding marks - otherwise say "passed", "left" or "taken" instead of "rounded".

As long as competitors know for sure which marks are rounding marks and which aren't, they have no excuse for sailing a wrong course.

I'm also not sure it's necessary to identify any marks as rounding marks unless the RC intends for them to be looped. Otherwise course geometry will dictate whether a competitor's string touches a mark or not.
Created: 19-Oct-08 17:00
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
 I'm also not sure it's necessary to identify any marks as rounding marks unless the RC intends for them to be looped. Otherwise course geometry will dictate whether a competitor's string touches a mark or not. 

Tim, I can't fully agree with either of your statements.  "Marks are to be rounded to port/starboard" is plenty clear and very, very common.  Even the RYA 2000/5 uses that same language.

On your point above, the reason to designate rounding marks is that those marks define the shortest distance rhumb-lines and thus the "shape" and distance of the course.  Passing/boundry marks do not do that.
Created: 19-Oct-08 17:25
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
The intention of the race committee is irrelevant except as a matter of idle curiosity.  What counts is what the race committee writes in the SI.

Likewise 'as long as the competitors know ...' isn't good enough.  What 'everyone knows' isn't good enough.  What is required is clear SI.

It IS necessary to identify all marks that are rounding marks in the SI (rule 2.1(5)).

If it is clear from the course diagrams (or charted positions of marks and course descriptions in the SI) which marks are rounding marks, it is not necessary to expressly list rounding marks as such in the SI (Note to rule L9.2).

Language such as 'Marks are to be rounded ... ' or 'All marks are to be rounded ...' is clear and makes all marks into rounding marks, including looping marks as necessary.  It is a really bad form of words for SI.  Better wording is 'left'.  That's the word used in rule 28.1.  Then list rounding marks or rely on the geometry.

It is necessary for rounding marks to be identified for the application of:
  • rule 28.2 The String Rule,
  • rule 32.2 Shorten course;  and
  • rule 33 Changing the Next Leg.
Created: 19-Oct-08 21:34
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Angel, you say "'Marks are to be rounded to port/starboard' is plenty clear and very, very common.  Even the RYA 2000/5 uses that same language." 

But this is a case (and I suspect there are many others) where it was not clear to the authors of the SIs. They did not intend for any marks to be looped, and almost certainly would not have protested any boat that sailed the orange or green tracks in my diagram. They didn't recognize the implications of using "rounded" rather than "passed". 

With most windward/leeward or triangle courses this isn't an issue. But for random leg or point-to-point races it's something the RC needs to pay attention to. 
Created: Wed 03:26
Paul Hanly
Nationality: Australia
0
John Allan, could you clarify which rule you mean when you say:
 "It IS necessary to identify all marks that are rounding marks in the SI (rule 2.1(5))"
I can't find the rule to which you referred.
Thanks
Created: Thu 00:34
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Appx J 2.1 (emphasis added)

The sailing instructions shall include the following information: 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 rule 28.2);

Therefore if a mark is a rounding mark, it shall be identified as such.  
Created: Thu 01:07
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Phil

My apologies. 

rule J2.1(5)

See Angelo post above
Created: Thu 01:14
[You must be signed in to add a comment]