First sentence of RRS 76.1 ...
78.1. While a boat is racing, her owner and any other person in charge shall ensure that the boat is maintained to comply with her class rules and that her measurement or rating certificate, if any, remains valid.
As a Fleet Measurer, this wording always struck me as unique.
It calls out "owner" and "person in charge" as the ones responsible for adherence to the rule. Are there any other rules which are written mentioning these individuals?
Q1: Can a boat protest another boat based on RRS 76.1's first sentence? What if the owner or person in charge is/are not a part of the crew? (thus not part of "boat"), or
Q2: Is a claim under this rule more appropriately the basis of an RRS 69 report?, or
Q3: Must a boat with a claim, protest the boat first for breaking the CR or conditions of her measurement/rating certificate first?
Errors can arise in measurement due to mistake, rather than conscious deception.
So, PIC = crew, crew = boat, therefore boat can protest PIC.
I don't think 76.1 is dealing with "honest" errors. Rather, it's putting an active responsibility on the owner/PIC "to ensure".
"Shall ensure" is an action verb. If an owner/PIC can show that they acted to ensure compliance, does she break 76.1 if still found out of compliance?
Can a boat can be found to break a CR/measurement/cert and not break 76.1 if they can show they took generally-acceptable actions to ensure compliance?
That is not clear to me. I think the opposite is clearly true ... if a boat is found in non-compliance , then they break that compliance rule (CR, cert, etc). But even though it is out of compliance, I can see the possibility that a PC could find that the owner/PIC did what could be reasonably expected to ensure compliance.
It's an interesting question.
What I got (and this was ten years ago),
1 A boat that does not comply with the relevant class rules (damage and wear and tear deviations apart as RRS 64.3) is not a boat of that class. Thus a boat with a Laser hull and a replica sail is not a Laser Class boat.
2 A Club is permitted to organise racing for any type of boat subject to compliance with the Racing Rules of Sailing. For example, the Club may wish to organise racing for boats that have a Laser hull with a replica sail or for boats that have a Europe hull with a Moth mast and sail. Such boats may race as a class or in handicap races but they are not a Laser or a Europe as they do not comply with the relevant class rules.
3 A Club may organise handicap racing for specific classes or for any boat within a range of Portsmouth Numbers (PN) or for boats without trapezes or any other criteria. It is for the Club to state the PN for each type of boat racing; the PN list published by the RYA is a guide only.
4 A notice of race or sailing instructions may not alter the rules of any Class except as permitted by RRS 87. Rules in the RRS can only be changed as permitted by RRS 86.1.
5 RRS 78 refers only to compliance with Class Rules. A boat with a Laser hull and a replica sail has no class rules unless the Club specify otherwise.
6 If the Club wishes to run races in which Lasers and other similar boats race together and equally, it is suggested that its racing programme schedules handicap races for boats with a PN of 1091 (for example) and that the Club gives a boat with a Laser hull and a replica sail a PN of 1091.
In summary, do not try to make boats comply with class rules when, intentionally, they do not.
Now, clearly if you knowingly enter a Not Quite XYZ in a race as an XYZ, especially if the NOR specifies XYZ, then that's going to be RRS2 and RRS69. But as far as 78 is concerned, the boat no longer has class rules to comply with. So maybe the boundary between breaking class rules and not having any class rules to break is a sticky area. On the other hand there can be no objection to entering a Not Quite XYZ if the NOR permits it, and there is no requirement for the owner or person in charge to maintain the boat to class rules that no longer apply to her.
An addendum to my RYA query suggested that the main point of defining a responsible individual was for when misconduct was being considered.
After all it probably wouldn't be useful to charge the entire crew of a large yacht with misconduct.
It's "shall ensure" ... so one would have to show someone didn't ensure something.
It's a uniquely written rule.
RRS 46 does not refer to 'owner'.
RRS 60.1 says
A boat or committee may protest a boat.
RRS Introduction Terminology says "boat" means
A sailboat and the crew on board, that are subject to the rules.
So nobody can protest an owner that was not on board the boat. The only avenue would be through RRS 69.
RRS 2 also places an obligation on an owner, who likewise could not be protested directly if he or she was not on board the boat.
RRS 78.1 says "owner and any other person in charge".
RRS 46 says there shall be a person in charge on the boat. Therefore there is always someone on the boat, who is crew, who is subject to RRS 78.1.
Therefore, A boat can always protest another boat under 78.1. That was my point.
Ensure demands a high standard. It is not sufficient to instruct somebody to "make my boat go fast without breaking the rules". It requires considerable positive action to check and verify whether or not measurement rules are complied with. That may include personally acquiring necessary knowledge and physically inspecting any work, or at the very least, engaging a competent professional advisor who has no interest in the outcome of any 'performance improvements', to inspect, assess and advise on rules compliance, independently of anyone who is designing, supervising, or doing any work.
The use of 'ensure' is designed to overcome the defence of 'honest mistake'.
The owner and person in charge must take positive steps to prevent an 'honest mistake'.
The use of 'ensure' is designed to overcome the defence of 'honest mistake'.
The owner and person in charge must take positive steps to prevent an 'honest mistake'.
BINGO!
Nothing in RRS 78, 60.1, or 69 suggests that a [successful] protest for breaking a class rule is a condition precedent to making a protest (or a report to a protest committee under RRS 69) for breaking RRS 78.
In hearing a valid protest for breach of RRS 78 (that is a protest against the person in charge), it will be necessary to prove any underlying breach of class rules, and the protest committee should record a conclusion that the boat broke the class rule.
Not really.
RRS 2, 4, 6, 69, and 78 all place obligations on 'owners'.
RRS 4 places various obligations on owners and persons in charge to ensure.