Hi all
I have 2 questions regarding he use of SPs.
1: I cannot find any RRS that allow the use of SPs ?
DP I think are covered by 60.5(c)(1) and are determined by the PC after a hearing in accordance with Appendix A 5.1 last sentense - no problems.
SP are a penalties applied without a hearing by the RC or TC.
This for me are not allowed by 90.3/Appendix A5.1 - and if, should the definition of SP in NOR/SI not state which rule it changes (at least Appendix A5.1)?
2: Do we have any guidelines for the size of a SP - can it range from 1 point to DSQ ?
a) SPs (Standard Penalties) are penalties that can be applied without a hearing, typically by the Race Committee (RC) or Technical Committee (TC), for breaches of rules specified in the Sailing Instructions.
b) These do not exist inherently in the core RRS but are made valid by explicit changes through the Notice of Race (NoR) or Sailing Instructions (SIs).
c) The 2025 SI Guide provides exact wording: “The notation ‘[SP]’ in a rule of the SIs means that the standard penalty for a breach of the rule may be applied by the RC or TC without a hearing. This changes RRS A5.” (SI Guide v2025, Preamble and Section 1.2)
d) That sentence, in effect, amends RRS A5.1, enabling SPs to be applied outside a hearing.
e) This change must be explicit in the SIs, with the relevant rules marked [SP] and the preamble noting the shift in A5.1. Per RRS 85.1, this satisfies the requirement to modify a rule.
f) RRS 60.5(c) relates only to DPs (Discretionary Penalties), which must be decided by a Protest Committee after a hearing unless exoneration applies.
2. The RRS does not prescribe exact values, but yes, SPs can range from 1 point to DSQ or more. The SI Guide and common practice offer flexibility — with the caveat that the penalty must be predefined in the SIs.
3. Reference Summary
a) RRS A5.1: Can be changed to allow SPs — must be declared in SIs.
b) RRS 85.1: Authorizes SIs to change rules if properly stated.
c) SI Guide 2025: Provides explicit SP implementation language.
d) No SPs are allowed by default in RRS — they require explicit implementation.
1.4. [SP] denotes a rule to which a standard penalty from the “USODA Graded Penalty System” may be applied
by the race committee or technical committee without a hearing, or a discretionary penalty applied by the
protest committee with a hearing. This changes RRS 60.5(b) and A5.1.
SI Addendum 2 – USODA Graded Penalty System
Percentage Penalties rounded up to the next whole number. Penalties apply to the race of infringement; otherwise
to the first race of the day.
1. Minor SI penalties
Penalty approximately equal to 5% of fleet
a) Not displaying the assigned colored division streamer
b) Launching before ‘Harbor Launch’ signal
c) Failure to return promptly to waiting area after finishing
d) Failure to report penalty taken
e) Failure to comply with Safety Check-Out/Check-In procedures
2. Minor class rule penalties and intermediate SI penalties
Penalty approximately equal to 10% of fleet
a) Bailer/paddle/daggerboard/painter not correctly attached to hull (CR 4.3)
b) Painter not attached to mast step (CR 4.3 (b))
c) Whistle not attached to personal flotation device (CR 4.2 (a))
d) Distance between edge of sail and mast and/or boom at one eyelet 15mm or more (CR 6.6.3.3 and/or CR 6.6.3.4)
e) Distance between edge of sail and mast and/or boom at two eyelets 13mm or more (CR 6.6.3.3 and/or CR 6.6.3.4)
f) Loss of sail tie (CR 6.6.3.3 and/or CR 6.6.3.4)
g) Clearance between span and boom between 101 mm and 115 mm (CR 3.5.3.8)
h) Ring(s) on span of boom slipping (CR 3.5.3.8)
i) Sailing across a race in progress before starting or after finishing (RRS 23.1)
j) Out of the waiting area
k) Breaches of SI 23, Support Teams
3. Intermediate class rule penalties
Penalty approximately equal to 30% of fleet
a) No bailer, paddle or painter in boat (CR 4.3)
b) No whistle (CR 4.2)
c) Lanyard, locking device or other arrangement used to attach mast to the hull not in position (CR 3.5.2.11)
d) Sail outside limits of bands (CR 3.5.2.7 and CR 6.6.3.1)
e) Distance between edge of sail and mast and/or boom at two eyelets 15mm or more (CR 6.6.3.3 and/or CR 6.6.3.4)
f) Distance between edge of sail and mast and/or boom at three or more eyelets 13mm or more (CR 6.6.3.3 and/or CR
6.6.3.4)
g) Clearance between span and boom more than 120 mm (CR 3.5.3.8)
h) Edge of sail at throat, tack or clew eyelet positioned 3 mm or more from mast and/or boom (CR 6.6.3.3 and/or CR
6.6.3.4)
i) Failure to wear an approved PFD
j) Repeated infringement of Section 1 or Section 2 penalties, above
4. Major class rule penalties (as per RRS)
Penalty up to DSQ – requires Protest Hearing
a) All RRS, except as amended
b) All SI, including amendments, except as specified above
c) Use of uninspected equipment
d) Use of unapproved fittings
e) Repeated infringement of Section 3 penalties, abov
Nowhere are there a mention of the TC being allowed to do that?
And again how big can a SP be - DSQ without a hearing by the RC or TC (except what is mentioned in A5.1 last sentense ?
You can change A5.1 to allow RC and TC to take actions that worsen a boat’s score without a hearing.
However, it's different with 90.3 — it's a part 7 rule, so you can't change it. 90.3(d) doesn't mention TC. Only the PC is allowed to direct a scoring change.
A good question is whether SP imposed by TC (without a hearing) and implemented in scoring by RC breaks 90.3(d).
The RYA has some good guidance in this area which is worth reading.
Key question :
Can Appendix A be changed by NoR/SI ?
90.3(a) state that the RC must score according to Appendix A unless another system apply.
In the events in question the scoring are made in accordance with Appendix A, and another system do not apply?
Appendix A start with a reference to 90.3.
86.1(b) do not allow a change to part 7 rules - 90.3 are a part 7 rule.
Hense in my oppinion we cannot change Appendix A - including A5.1.
Where does my logic go wrong ?
Perhaps a Q&A could help.
I will initiate.
when you change Appx A, then 90.3(a) is unchanged ... the RC scores according to Appx A (which is changed).
if you discard Appx A entirely and replace it in the NOR/SI ... then you are in the "unless ... some other system" clause of 90.3(a).
Can you describe the conflict/inconsistency you are seeing?
So for me if you change "A" then you also change 90.3(a) - further "A" start with "see rule 90.3" again indicating "A" being a part of 90.3.
If 90.3(a) would allow a change to "A" they should not refer specifically to "A" - if "A" is changed, what version of "A" are the reference to ?
It can only be the version written in the RRS - not a changed version, as I think this would be a change to 90.3(a).
I do recognize your comments with regard to changing vs discarding "A".
If we accept that A5.1 can be changed, then the RC will be given authority to penalize a boat - without a hearing,or ? - with an undefined panalty (no guidance anywhere on the size of a SP), up to DSQ ?
This change totally ignore, that A5.1 directly states, that the RC shall score A5.1(a)-(c) without a hearing and "only the PC may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat´s score".
And can the TC also score SPs ?
I think we need to write more than the standard SP wording for it to apply and meet the requirements of RRS 85.1 for changing a rule - if at all allowed ?
Hans V
IMO it is generally accepted that one can change a rule that is allowed under RRS 86 and then that changed-rule is applied "as changed" anywhere it is referenced in any other rule. It does not matter that the rule referencing the changed-rule is itself not changable.
Also, the several references in Appx A to 90.3(a) are really a "helpful reference". They say "see 90.3(a)", pointing the reader to that the rule because it adds information in context.
Because Appx A is where the RC is granted the power to change scores without a hearing, and since Appx A is changable under RRS 86 by NOR/SI, therefore a change to Appx can add that power to the TC.
90.3(a) stays intact and unchanged throughout this process and is a rule regardless of the reference to it in Appx A.
In other words, an SI could change Appx A and remove all references to 90.3(a) .. but that would not make 90.3(a) unbinding or inactive. 90.3(a) cannot be changed and is a rule regardless of what Appx A says, no matter how it is changed or how it is replaced.
So, in this instance, we have changed Appx A with the addition of SP's and these SP's include the ability for the TC to penalize boats under Appx A .. and "the RC shall score .. as provided in Appx A"
OK .. TC isn't on that list either affirmatively or negatively. So, by 90.3(d) the RC is not required to make the scoring changes by the TC, but 90.3(d) also does not forbid the RC from doing so either.
So, if there is a TC scoring penalty through Appx A, the RC shall score it under 90.3(a). 90.3(d) does not forbid the RC from doing so, therefore i think 90.3(a) would prevail (and i don't think an RC breaks 90.3(d) by doing so).
That said, there is a bit of a conflict there (or at least the appearance of one). i guess an RC could refuse to score a SP from a TC under a modified Appx A (or a boat objects to the RC applying the TC-originated SP). Under that scenario, maybe the boat/RC would file a R4R and put the apparent conflict before a PC to sort out, but i would think that they might conclude as i did above ... that 90.3(d) does not forbid it, and 90.3(a) demands it .. so 90.3(a)'s command to follow a modified-Appx A stands and controls the situation.
JMHO and an interesting question ...
therefore the modification of Appx A allowing tje TC to apply these penalties is invalid.
Giving the RC allowance to change "A" and apply SPs - up to DSQ - without a hearing, and without a guide for SPs - is a dangerous approach, and IMO not allowed ?
But we do not agree on that - so I rest my case .
It is clear that the NOR/SI can change Appx A, adding SP's and that RC's can apply those penalizes. Just like an OCS score or an NSC score applied by the RC, a boat may request redress if they believe the RC-applied SP was done in error.
I've given 2 arguments for whether or not modifying Appx A with SP's that include TC penalties is allowed within the RRS.
I'd be interested to hear what others think.
The SI can describe all these penalties as being applied by the RC. The TC can file "reports" to the RC of infractions they discover, which then become an RC record. Reviewing this record, the RC can apply the penalty based upon their own review (and discretion).
From the Sailing Instructions for the Paris Olympic Games.
That said, how would you argue against my (and Hans's) "against" argument ... that using 90.3(a)'s "shall" to include TC's in an amended Appx A effectively adds TC's to the list of entities in 90.3(d), thus changing 90.3(d), which is not allowed to be changed?
Would yours be effectively the same as my "for" argument previously stated or something different?
Here's why..
Scoring is done by the RC (the scorer) according to the usual scoring system called App A. That's all that 90.3(a) is saying.
90.3(d) has nothing to do with SP. It is relevant only to score changes from decisions made by PC or MNA (normally in hearings).
Changing A5.1 doesn't change 90 3. It changes A5.1 which is allowed.
A5.1 needs to change to add SPs to the list of no-hearing breaches. A5.1 needs to change to empower the TC to give no-hearing penalties.
The scoring system for 90.3(a) is still essentially App A just with a couple of relatively minor changes.
A standard penalty list is part of the SI or should be referred to as a document which governs the event, so thus are rules.
What am I missing?
That said, i wanted to give a full throated defense of the other position to shake it out.
I agree that RRS 90 could be 'tidied up' to include reference to the technical committee, but I don't think this is fatal to the work of technical committees or the implementation of SP.
RRS 90.3(a) says 'The race committee shall score a race or series as provided in Appendix A unless the notice of race or sailing instructions specify some other system.'
Whenever we come across a rule with language like 'unless the NOR/SI otherwise provide', when the NOR/SI say something different from the rule, that is not changing the rule, it is doing something that is expressly allowed by the rule.
The different provision does not require magic words ('this changes RRS ...') and the change does not violate RRS 86.
I think Mark is pointing in the right direction:
Arguably the calculation, recording and publication of scores is separable from determining scores. For example when a protest committee gives redress, they may determine the score to be given (in accordance with RRS A9, or otherwise), and inform the race committee (scorer), to enable them to score the race or series. I think this is the same as when a technical committee, identifies a breach and applies the SP SI to determine a penalty, and then informs the race committee, which then scores the race or series.