In a recent Lido 14 National Regatta, I was driving a chase boat. A competitor capsized near the windward mark. Under the existing conditions, they were not necessarily in any danger. I stayed close to see they required assistance. The team did call for assistance, which I provided. They decided to retire for the day and I towed them in.
My question involves my decision to wait. My assumption was that rendering help would require the team to retire from the race. I wanted to give them the opportunity to self rescue and stay in the race.
That's certainly how we operate in High-school sailing. After the regatta, the PRO stated that I could have provided assistance and the boat could have continued because they were "in danger." They could continue as long as they didn't gain any advantage from the assistance.
In the following weeks, I have read up on it a bit and cannot find anything that directly supports his assertion. Perhaps I've missed an obvious source.
Rule 41 says that assistance can be given in the case of injury, illness or danger. It makes not statement about whether the boat can then continue or any reference to gaining an advantage.
US Sailing prescription
2024-2 makes clear that the sailor need not "prove" that injury/illness or danger exists. If assistance is requested, it should provided.
Importantly, it concludes with the phrase:
"However, a boat seeking and receiving help when not ill, injured or in danger breaks rule 41(a) and should retire from the race.”
Again, there is no mention of gaining advantage.
Let's assume the boat that capsized was near the front of the fleet. They call for and receive assistance. If there really was no danger, the US Sailing prescription says they should retire. But perhaps a danger did exist while they were in the water but is no longer present once they back in the boat (I don't know--sharks or crocodiles in the water). They sail on and finish mid fleet.
It seems to me that a boat finishing behind them has a case for redress at least. Even if the danger criterion is met, one could argue that the actions of the RC gave an advantage to the boat that had capsized in that it recovered more quickly than it would have.
I'd be happy if someone pointed out some obvious thing I've missed. But at this point, I think the way we handle it at HS regatta makes sense. If you can self rescue and continue, good on you. If you request help, you get it, but retire from the race.
I've even had a team capsize near the finish and drift across the line in second place (sailors were still "in contact" with the boat and there is no requirement that the boat be upright when it finishes).
So, do I have it wrong?
-Tony
I usually expect this to be part of the safety boat briefing as to at what stage they *should* intervene, what the consequence for the sailor is etc.
Our default stance is that sailors should be put back on boats if separated. I guess they become endangered if separated. I'm not sure I've seen that happen and benefit a near the front of the pack sailor.
I've once seen a boat drift fast down wind with a tide. The safety boat were rushing to catch it. You might argue the sailor was advantaged by being rushed to it... They safety boat then spent a "fair" (pun entirely intended) amount of time getting the boat up, bailed and sorted out... Resulting in no real advantage.
But you can argue that a last place is better than a retirement/DNF. So any assistance is better than the guy who tried to fix it himself and times out.
This is something that has changed fairly recently. A boat is (of course) only required to retire if she has broken a rule. Under the current rules outside help for a person considered in danger doesn't break a rule, so there is no need for RRS41 to state that the boat may continue.
Redress is very strictly limited, and really only available if another party has broken a rule or RC acted improperly. It's quite often the case that one may be disadvantaged through no fault of one's own and be ineligible for redress. In this case helping a person in danger is the very opposite of an improper action!
"Question 1: If a boat that is racing receives outside help for a crew member who is in danger, has the boat broken rule 41?
Answer 1: No. Rule 41(a) specifically permits a boat to receive outside help from any outside source for a crew member who is ill, injured or in danger. Furthermore, rule 1.1 requires a boat, competitor
or support person to give all possible help to any person or vessel in danger. If a boat that is racing receives outside help for a crew member who is in danger, she does not break rule 41 and she may continue racing.
Question 2: Is there a special meaning of the phrase “in danger” when used in rule 1.1, rule 41(a), and in other rules in The Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS)?
Answer 2: No. The phrase “in danger” is not defined in the RRS. The Terminology section of the Introduction to the RRS states that “other words and terms are used in the sense ordinarily understood in nautical or general use.” As understood in general use, the phrase “in danger” means: “the possibility of something happening that may injure, harm or kill somebody.”
Question 3: Does the fact that a person is in the water, by itself, mean that the person is “in danger?”
Answer 3: When people are in the water, the possibility of injury, harm or death exists. Therefore, it should be considered that they are “in danger” until it is obvious that they are not. There are many reasons a person in the water may be in danger, including injury, fatigue, hypothermia, preexisting health conditions, physical disabilities, being tangled in the rigging, being separated from the boat, being in water where there are sharks, and other reasons.
Case 20 states “A boat in a position to help another that may be in danger is required by rule 1.1 to do so.” A boat, competitor or support person will likely have no knowledge as to the circumstances that led to a person being in the water, or the condition of the person, until they are close by and have had the chance to assess the situation, which will, if practicable, usually include discussing the situation with the person.
Assumed Facts for Question 4: A boat in a race has capsized and at least one of the crew is in the water. A support boat lifts the mast of the capsized boat and holds the boat while the crew climbs back aboard. The boat continues in the race.
Question 4: Has the racing boat broken rule 41?
Answer 4: It depends. Rule 41(a) permits a boat to receive help from any source if a crew member is “in danger.” If any of the crew were “in danger” (see Answer 2), and if they would remain in danger until the boat is righted and the crew is back on board, then the boat has not broken rule 41(a). Furthermore, if the crew is unable to right the boat without outside help, then the crew is “in danger” and the boat has not broken rule 41(a)."
As long as the boat and crew remain in the same area. I believe it used to have to be reported and a penalty considered but this is not in the rule now.
This makes sense as we do not want our safety fleet waiting by one boat in case there is a problem.. We need the problem resolving to free the safety boat for the next incident.
In the 2009 RRS this exception was deleted in accordance with Submission 07-202. If anybody has a copy of that old submission, I'd love to see it.
In 2013, very rightly, that exception was put back into RRS 41.
USA Appeal US127 describes the process:
Explanation of rule 41(a).
I think that, since 2009, there have been too many changes for too many different reasons to make historical analysis of the changes worth while.
USA Appeal US127 was published in January 2024 and said, among other things
Q&A 2024-002 was published in May 2024 and said
Turning to Anthony's specific OP scenario.
Another boat nearby would have had no obligation to give help under RRS 1.
Until requested to do so, Anthony was quite right not to give help to the boat unless asked.
Once they asked for help, Anthony, was, again, quite right in giving it.
If they had thought that while capsized they were in danger, and, once righted, with Anthony's help, they had continued to race, any other boat that thought that they had broken a rule could have protested them, and, in a protest hearing, the protest committee would have to conclude (hopefully considering all the criteria in Q&A 2024-002) whether they were in danger or not.
There is now absolutely no consideration about whether the boat gained any advantage or not. That concept was very deliberately removed from RRS 41 in 2021.
If another boat had requested redress, no redress should be given.
The Q&A demonstrates that the action of the race committee in giving help that has been asked for is absolutely a proper action.
If the boat behind them is aggreived they can protest. If they don't protest they shouldn't expect race officials to do their dirty work for them.
The grounds of the protest is simply breach of RRS 41.
The possibility of protest from another racer relies on the last sentence of US Sailing 2024-02. Basically, if you were not really in any danger and receive help, you broke rule 41 and should retire from the race. If you don't, another racer could protest you. I think it's interesting that they use the word "should."
One comment on background: I work largely in Mission Bay in San Diego and capsizing a dinghy there would rarely be considered dangerous. That may explain my predilection to wait nearby to provide assistance as needed.
Basically, the bolded from Appeal 127 as quoted above (and emphasized by me):
The general advice taught to all judges is:
The general idea behind all of this is:
If touching a person would lead to a DSQ based on RRS 41(a), no one would ask for help, even if it were sensible and necessary. This avoidance by sailors could put them in real danger.
Nevertheless, we still have to consider the Basic Principles: If six boats capzise in a gust, you count heads and wait who needs your help the deerest. The one boat (of the six) receiving help should usually not be the first one at the next mark just because it was lucky enough to receive help...
Fortunately, we don't have crocodiles in our waters, thus we do not consider all capzised boats in danger if there is no special situation leading to a special danger.
Perhaps these examples of national guidelines might help you to negotiate solutions for your country.
Kind regards,
Frank
You have to decide for your own area.
But I get that's not always the case, and especially as boats get bigger, or water gets colder. When we sail in the winter, we feel differently of course! And there are scary things that have happened since my coaching days to kids who capsized in otherwise routine and "comfortable" conditions that have changed the equipment and emergency procedures to account for entanglement. This is a good wake-up call to those of us on the water, but also to those of us who have out-dated or sheltered experiences.
That comes back in via RRS 48.2.
If a person is separated from the boat, and in danger, help to that person does not break RRS 41, but if the boat 'resumes sailing the boat to the next mark' after the person leaves the boat, the boat breaks RRS 48.2.
Also, if a person separated from a boat is in danger and the boat does not give al possible help, that is, by if possible, sailing towards the person to recover them, the boat breaks RRS 1.1 .
Clearly i believe the rescued crew needs to be placed on the boat in the vavinity of there they fell off it.
I still however believe they can have asistance to right the boat, after capsize.
Yes wwe all have obligations under rule one to assist crew in the water.
The question is with the two rules you quote, who is likley to protest? As the pass do they have to hail protest or it is invalid?
Some may be academic breaches but how often could the successful y come to the room?
I was boat number 30, the guy who capsized was but number 3.
You assist him and he starts sailing again, in 24th place. Too far ahead for my call of protest to be heard by anyone. My protest may say without the assistance, he might have self recovered and come 30th, and me 29th. And so I gave been disadvantaged?
Or let's assume I am boat number 2 (miracles can happen!) and he was number 3. We both go over in the same gust. There is only one RIB and he is nearer #3 so goes to him first. Helps him up and he sails off. Now he comes to me, and but I have self recovered by now and also sail off.. but I get last place and #3 beats me... Who do I protest to on the water? The RIB? Any RIB? The RC? Or the sailor who is 500m ahead of me thanks to the advantage of RIB assistance...
Would I be protesting (saying the other guy should have retired), or asking for redress(saying the actions of the RC have disadvantaged me?).
If not in hailing distance you have to inform the other boat at the first reasonable opportunity.
If you do not the protest is invalid. The disadvantage is not a jury problem.
I belive helping a capsized boat is allowed si no act or ommission and no redress.
Also there is an interpretation of the current rules that says that if you were not involved in the incident but saw it your protest is currently invalid. This may be clarified or changed by ws.
I might not even know the other sailor doesn't retire in until I'm ashore.
If no-one can protest if they weren't directly involved, who can protest someone using a motor (or even being towed by a RIB) if they weren't directly involved other than watching the boat powering off into the distance? If my result is lower down the table as a result, maybe I am involved
I appreaciate your intentions, but I believe your strict interpretation would lead somewhere nobody of us would like to go in the end, it could make racing with sailing dinghies impossible in many legal environments.
If you go beyond the US suggestion ("Therefore, it should be considered that they are “in danger” until it is obvious that they are not.") and consider a crew always in danger when their boat is "just" capzised (w/o specialties like sharks, crocodiles, very cold waters, crew under the boat, crew entangled, etc.):
I believe danger is an option we as responsibles have to consider all the time, and the US term is a very wise solution to that problem. But we should be careful to declare normal dinghy sailing (including capsizing) always as dangerous.
Could you expand on this a little please.
AFAICS RRS 60.4(a)(2) is the only rule referring to 'was not involved or did not see' and it only applies to rules of Part 2 or RRS 31.
Rule 60.4 Protest Validity Issue: There are still some unintended consequences with the 2025-2028 Rules. One issue is with Rule 60.4(a)(2), which applies to protests when you see an incident 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 rules have permitted for a long time, and contrary to the Basic Principle: Sportsmanship and the Rules, 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 2 incident. 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 of 60.4(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
Neither USA Appeal US127 nor Q&A 2024-002 are authoritative interpretations of the rules.
The two approaches lead to two possible approaches when assessing whether outside assistance is warranted:
Each leads to a distinct outcome:
“When I arrived, the crew appeared to be fine, so I did not intervene. I was shocked when they later became unresponsive and began floating face down.”
“I was uncertain about the crew’s condition, so I assisted them in returning to their boat and remained nearby to assist righting the boat.”
I disagree with US Sailing wording about relationship between danger and risk in the first 2 sentences of Appeal 127-Answer 3. It reads as if they are saying that a person in the water is in danger. This causes confusion. (If that is what they are saying, it is wrong.)
Here's what I mean.
We are talking about two different elements of what it means to 'help someone in danger'.
1. The principals of risk assessment and determination of 'danger'.
2. A Cautious Approach to Helping - How to ensure people act with most caution to minimise the chance for unacceptable outcomes.
------------------------
The principals of risk assessment and determination of 'danger'.
Risk assessment is the process of assessing the probability and severity of outcomes (say, illness, injury or death). . A person in the water is at a higher risk than a person out of the water. However, this does not mean that a person in the water is in danger. Danger is simply a high risk which is above the acceptable level.
The US Sailing Appeal Q3 can be confusing. It uses the word 'Therefore' without clearly explaining the word 'consider' in the same sentence. This leads to the inference that being in the water = 'danger'.
The Q&A makes a more accurate analysis of the word 'danger' by highlighting that being in the water is not inherently 'dangerous'.
------------------------
A Cautious Approach
As Mark has pointed out, the US Sailing Appeal 127 expects a cautious approach. It says, "it should be considered that they are “in danger” until it is obvious that they are not."
This approach is smart and logical. It does not rely on any determination of actual risk/danger for safe action to commence.
------------------------
Putting it all together
Safety and Risk and Danger is not a 'one size fits all' thing. There are many factors which come into what is safe, risky or dangerous. Both the US Sailing Appeal and Q&A list these.
US Sailing's Appeal 127 statement creates a confusion for sailors. It doesn't reflect the actual science behind safety management. Thus, some US Sailors are wrongly convinced that someone in the water is always in danger. US Sailing are mixing 'risk' with 'how to act'.
Yet, I fully support the logical safety-first approach. I would have no problem reading the following as a National Prescriptions or even RRS.
"For the purpose of RRS 1.1 and RRS 41 a person in the water must be considered in danger until it is clear they are not."
It would mean if you see someone in the water, you are essentially required to consider them in danger for purpose of RRS 1.1 and they would not easily be penalised for purpose of RRS 41 (unless by their own admission).
Great.
A problem of wording
Neither USA Appeal US127 nor Q&A 2024-002 hit the mark IMHO. I think both should have been clearer in what it all means. Something like:
Does the fact that a person is in the water, by itself, mean that the person is “in danger?”
Answer:
No. Although when people are in the water a greater possibility of injury, harm or death exists, they may or may not actually be in danger.
However, to ensure that safe help is given in all instances first without delay for assessment of a situation, it should be considered that they are “in danger” until it is obvious that they are not.
This is also true for any boat which asks for help.
This answers the question and explains the reason for the expected action. Bingo!
OP's Question
Anthony,
US Sailing have a smart approach to this. The other rules surrounding the scenarios back this approach. I wouldn't overthink it. Do what is safety conscious and fair and the rules support that.
The fine line between what is help-in-danger and what is outside-assistance is irrelevant. The standard of proof favouring safe action is built in by the words 'until it is clear'. So no need to worry about that fine detail. If it was marginal, it's OK. Only when it is 'clearly' outside assistance do we need to ask the question.
We want our support boats and safety boats to act in the direction of safety first, without fear they will jeopardise the boat they are helping. We want sailors to ask for assistance when they need it without fear that they will be protested or be expected to retire. We want them to act and keep acting until its 'clear' there is no danger, so they can get on with their role for any other boats rather than standing by, just in case.
The only way that can work is to ensure that there is no penalty for receiving that assistance. The attitudes to this system are something the 'community' needs to nurture amongst sailors, so that when a boat receives genuine assistance, there is no disgruntlement from other sailors. The easiest is to say, "Imagine it was you who needed the help."
The penalties still remain in the system for a boat who abuses this approach maliciously. There are remedies in form of retirement penalty and perhaps RRS 2 and RRS 69 depending on the exact case-by-case circumstances.
Just my 2 cents.
Starting with the fact that our venue is in general considered a safe one (Mission Bay, California), I suggested some guidelines in the bay (assuming it's not some rare extreme-condition day).
For a competitor:
If you see a nearby competitor capsize and you are the closest boat, you should sail by and ask the person in the water if they are OK. Assuming they wave you off and a chase boat is nearby/on the way, I would say you have satisfied your obligations under 1.1.
If the person in the water seems in distress or says they need help, you are obliged to provide assistance as the chase boat makes its way. You may file for redress if needed.
For a chase boat:
Be prepared to come to the sailor's aid, but allow them to take the lead. If they ask for help, or you are not sure they are safe, assist. If the person is intending to sail on, help should be limited to getting them back on their upright boat. At that point, they are out of danger.
I think John A had a good point that Appeal 127 and the Q&A read somewhere between legal advice and a rules explanation.
We've talked a lot about the differences in the premises between Appeal 127 and Q&A 2024. But even the appeal alone is somewhat conflicted.
In question 4, it asks whether a boat that has capsized then asks for and receives assistance has broken rule 41. Its answer is "It depends..." (and goes on to expand on that)
If we take at face value its opening premise that a person in the water should be assumed to be in danger, the answer to that last question should be "No." The uncertainty in their answer is basically admitting that a person in the water with a capsized boat is not necessarily in danger, which is the same premise in Q&A 2024-002'
Appeal 127 posits that you should assume they are in danger until you can assess confidently they are not.
I think that is good "safety-first" advice.
2024-002 says they may not be in danger, but you should assess and provide assistance if they ask for it or you assess that they need it.
I think the Inquest scenario provided by Mark is missing something. “When I arrived, the crew appeared to be fine, so I did not intervene."
Then tragedy ensues.
At a minimum, any assessment of danger would be to ask if the crew needs/wants assistance. If they respond in the affirmative, provide assistance. If they cannot respond, provide assistance (and probably call 911). If they say "we're OK. We've got this" Wait nearby.
In Mark's hypothetical: If the chase boat driver failed to ask if the sailors wanted assistance, but waited nearby while the sailors became unresponsive, I would say there might be grounds to conclude negligence.
If we change the scenario to: "When I arrived, the crew appeared to be fine. I offered assistance. They declined the offer and stated they were OK. So I waited nearby." Tragedy ensues.
It would have to be an extreme situation for me to provide assistance over the objection of the crew in the water. Thus I would hold the chase boat blameless in this hypothetical tragedy.
You arrive in a safety boat (not sure why the Americans like to chase!) your first question is, everyone accounted for. (Count heads). Make contact with the sailor(s). Ask if they are OK. But standing-by you need to be mindful of the need to intervene. Sailors get tired, cold and sometimes knocked about etc. Our SIs always say "shall comply with reasonable requests of the RC" which allows for a safety boat terminating a sailors race against their will (these are junior sailors).
But I was interested in the nearest sailor should sail to a capsize. I wouldn't expect another dinghy sailor to render assistance unless it is obvious there is an immediate issue. But I'd expect enough safety boats that a sailor can not alter course to check a boat. A glance, a head check maybe.