Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

E3.7 and Case 140

John Ball
Nationality: Canada
Does Case 140 apply to Radio Sailing as Appendix E3.7 adds. the phrase ‘shall leave the course area immediately’ to 30.3 (U flag) and 30.4 (black flag) starts?

The facts here are similar to Case 140, Answer 1, Paragraph 2.

Boats are lined up below the start line, with sails luffing. Boat X is next to the right end pin, with boats to leeward. With 4 seconds to go, boat Y comes in from astern and hits the transom of X, pushing her over the line before the start signal. Boat X protests boat Y and returns to restart and sails the course and finishes. As she was identified as being in the forward triangle, Boat X was scored BFD/UFD.

Boat X promptly protested Boat Y. Boat Y took an E4.3 penalty (one tack and one gybe). 

Under R 43 and Case 140, if the offending boat is penalised, or takes an appropriate penalty, boat X is to be exonerated. Boat X files her protest – not a request for Redress.

The PC finds that Boat X was forced to break a rule, by the actions of a boat breaking a rule of Part 2, in this example. R 12. 

Under Case 140, in ‘big’ boats, a PC upon hearing the protest, may exonerate X and penalise Y for breach of R 12 – either by DSQ, or confirm she took an appropriate penalty at the time of the incident. With that finding, the PC may require the RC to rescore X in her finish position and rescore the rest of the fleet. 

Q1. In Radio Sailing, may the PC use Case 140 and exonerate X and require the RC to rescore X and the rest of the fleet even though X did not comply with E3.7 and leave the course area?

Q2. As Boat X protested and Boat Y took an appropriate penalty under E4.3 at the time of the incident, may the RC assume that Boat X is exonerated without a PC finding, and score Boat X in her finish position and score the rest of the fleet accordingly?

Thanks for any insights

John

Created: 25-Sep-21 18:16

Comments

Format:
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Q1 - I would say no.  Boat Y did not compel Boat X to break E3.7 and therefore Boat X is not entitled to exoneration under 43.1(a) for not complying with the requirements of E3.7.  This is similar to the reasoning on which Case 140 Answer 1 is based.

Q2 - No, the RC is required by rule 30.3 or 30.4 to score the boat UFD or BFD.  The RC cannot decide whether Boat Y will be exonerated, only the PC can do that.

Sometimes sailing isn't fair but that's the game we all agreed to.
Created: 25-Sep-21 20:02
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
Hi John,
perhaps I did not explain it clearly enough - and while this is hypothetical, this type of incident does happen from time to time.

Boat Y sailing clear astern, contacted the transom of X and physically pushed her forward, allowing the bow of X to cross the start line. It is normal for IOMs to stack along the line, sails luffing, and then sheet in around at around  the1 second mark. They accelerate so fast, they are up to hull speed almost immediately. There was nothing X could have done to prevent being pushed over by the 'keep clear' boat.
Here is a youtube video of an IOM World Championship regatta start.
https://youtu.be/UzWSEa42RF0?t=70

Does this cause you to reconsider your opinion?

The second question is about keeping events moving. Radio sailing regattas with larger fleets are run in heats, one race is comprised of several heats, with promotions and relegations - a ladder system. So if there is a protest, it may have to be heard before the next heat, and racing is delayed.
Thanks
John
Created: 25-Sep-21 22:22
John Christman
Nationality: United States
Reply to: 19088 - John Ball
John B - As a member of a model yacht club, I am reasonably familiar with RC racing although I haven't done any yet as I haven't finished putting together my Victoria.  I am sticking to my thoughts on the rules though.  I have nearly seen this happen in Opti racing when everyone is also stacked up on the line and the use of the U flag is frequent.
Created: 25-Sep-22 19:54
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Boat X is exonerated for breaking RRS 30.3, but she is not exonerated for breaking RRS E3.7.  I think she remains UFD, otherwise DSQ.
Created: 25-Sep-21 23:26
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
Reply to: 19089 - John Allan
Hi John A,
My problem with your position is that R43.2 says that the  exonerated boat shall not be penalised. Making her leave the course and thereby denying her the ability to sail the course is a penalty.
John B.
Created: 25-Sep-22 04:38
Phil Mostyn
Nationality: Australia
Reply to: 19089 - John Allan
I agree John A. 
Created: 25-Sep-23 08:08
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
That may be a problem with RRS E3.7.

The boat makes two distinct breaches at two distinct times:

  1. breach of RRS 30.3, which occurs at the time she enters the triangle, and
  2. breach of RRS E3.7 which occurs at a later time when the race committee informs the boat that she has broken RRS 30.3
Created: 25-Sep-22 04:44
Johan Bergkvist
So why was E3.7 added in the first place? Gordon might remember...?
Created: 25-Sep-22 11:00
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
I was hoping for a different opinion that that the boat is still DSQ because of the wording of E3.7.

R 30.3 and 30.4 use the term ‘identified’ but not how notified – hoist the X flag? – and does not tell the boat how to behave – it is assumed that the boat will know how to behave, and to get out of the way of the boats racing.

Why E3.7? I believe there was an incident at an IOM World Championship (perhaps Bermuda in 2013?) where a black flag was used. Many Radio sailors do not have a big boat experience, and being new to the Black flag, did not get clear of the course. To clarify the desired behaviour, the addition of E3.7 was requested. I do not believe there was any intent in E3.7 to ‘change the game’ to make this any different from the rights and obligations of boats under 30.3 and 30.4. It was intended to clarify the correct behaviour.

Case 140 is relatively new and provides a recourse path for a boat that is forced to break 30.3 or 30.4. Unfortunately, it seems that the opinion in this thread is that the boat still breaks E3.7 even where a valid protest and exoneration exists and punishes a Radio Sailor by denying that same recourse available to full size sailors. 

I agree that the problem is created by the E3.7 wording if you read it as two separate parts – over the line, and leave the course. I am suggesting that this interpretation is akin ‘double jeopardy’. The boat is exonerated for the breach of 30.3 or 30.4 so I was hoping there should not be an additional penalty.

One solution is to request to delete or modify E3.7 at the next RRS cycle, but that takes years. In the interim, IRSA could recommend that every regatta add to its NOR/SI to delete E3.7, but that may lead to inconsistent implementations. I will ask through the IRSA to develop a call to the WS Call Book for Radio Sailing, to make an interpretation like that of Case 140 that may apply and overrides the wording of E3.7.

John

Created: 25-Sep-22 21:24
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
John Ball said

I was hoping for a different opinion that that the boat is still DSQ because of the wording of E3.7.

R 30.3 and 30.4 use the term ‘identified’ but not how notified – hoist the X flag? – and does not tell the boat how to behave – it is assumed that the boat will know how to behave, and to get out of the way of the boats racing.

RRS 30.3 and 30.4 do not contain any requirement for boats that are U/BFD to leave the course or to behave in any way other than as if they are racing ( Case 1 ).

In fleet racing requirements for U/BFD boats to leave the course need to be stated in SI, and usually involve U/BFD boats being 'notified' by their numbers being displayed at the first mark.

U or Black Flag starts are usually used with competitive fleets which have demonstrated closely judged starts.  It would not usually be expected that a boat that is U/BFD would know with any certainty that she was over early.

RRS E3.7 significantly changes the game by requiring U/BFD boats, if informed by the race committee, to immediately leave the course area.  The race committee has a discretion whether or not it wants the boat to leave the racing area, hence whether or not to inform the boat.

Case 140 is relatively new and provides a recourse path for a boat that is forced to break 30.3 or 30.4. Unfortunately, it seems that the opinion in this thread is that the boat still breaks E3.7 even where a valid protest and exoneration exists and punishes a Radio Sailor by denying that same recourse available to full size sailors. 

Well that's an outcome that arises from a special rule that the radio sailing community has inserted into RRS Appendix E.

I agree that the problem is created by the E3.7 wording if you read it as two separate parts – over the line, and leave the course. I am suggesting that this interpretation is akin ‘double jeopardy’. The boat is exonerated for the breach of 30.3 or 30.4 so I was hoping there should not be an additional penalty.

I think there are pretty clearly two separate incidents.
  • the U/BFD is the same incident as the rule breach compelling it, and takes place when the race committee identifies the boat.
  • the RRS E3.7 breach occurs when the race committee, after having 1) identified the U/BFD boat, 2) deciding that the boat should leave the racing area, and 3) informs the U/BFD boat.

One solution is to request to delete or modify E3.7 at the next RRS cycle, but that takes years. In the interim, IRSA could recommend that every regatta add to its NOR/SI to delete E3.7, but that may lead to inconsistent implementations. I will ask through the IRSA to develop a call to the WS Call Book for Radio Sailing, to make an interpretation like that of Case 140 that may apply and overrides the wording of E3.7. 

 These are matters for the radio sailing community.

I don't think it's a good idea to try to switch off a WS Case by a specific discipline Call, particularly when the problem is caused by a specific discipline special rule.

Created: 25-Sep-22 22:38
Phil Mostyn
Nationality: Australia
(1) John B, I have no sympathy for sailors not knowing the rules, particularly the starting rules.

(2) my sole experience of Radio sailing is limited to having been a spectator on 2 occasions.

(3) I think that the RC should "inform" the boats (read competitors) with a blackboard displayed in the "Control Area". It can be a simple arrangement perhaps accompanied by a hail.

(4) Boats racing under the unaltered RRS rule 30 (4) are equally "hard-done" by when the terms of of the questions in Case 140 apply. Then again, a very senior judge once asked a class of aspiring IJ's; "Where in the rules does it say the rules are meant to be fair?"

(5) However, RRS 30(4) can be made to work "fairer", indeed Sailing Australia once put forward a proposal to achieve just that, but ithe submission didn't get very far.


Created: 25-Sep-23 09:54
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
This rule does not appear in the 2009 rule book but does appear in my copy of the 2017 rule book. I believe that the rule was introduced in the 2013 rule book. If anyone has kept a copy could they please confirm.

Several observations:
RC actions:
1. RRS E3.7 does not make it obligatory for the RC to inform boats that they are UFD or BFD.
2. RRS 3.7 does not require the RC to inform the boat immediately, or promptly. There is no time limit.

A sensible RC policy may be to delay hailing numbers until it is clear that a boat has returned to start again, and had protested another boat for an incident on the start line. In which case the RC has the option of not hailing that boat's sail number.

Rule changes:
1. RRS 3.7 is a rule that can be changed by national prescription, NoR or SIs.
There are several options, including:
- delete E 3.7 entirely
- reword the first sentence of RRS 3.7 to read 'The Race Committee may inform a boat that she has broken rule 30.3 or 30.4.' This makes clearer that the hail is optional.
- Delete ' the boat shall immediately leave the course area.' I believe that these words are redundant. I would argue that having been informed that she has broken a rule, and has been disqualified without a hearing, a boat breaks RRS 2 by continuing in the race UNLESS she takes action such as protesting another boat, AND returns to start correctly. A call may be necessary to achieve consistency in PC decisions.

2. Change RRS 6.6 (2) by adding after physical damage: ' breaking RRS 30.3 or 30.4'. This would allow the PC to give redress.




Created: Mon 10:32
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Gordon, The present RRS E3.7 was introduced in what appears from the Study Version to be a complete rewrite of Appendix E in the 2013 RRS.

The Study Version does not seem to include a Submission.
Created: Mon 13:21
Phil Mostyn
Nationality: Australia
Hi Gordon,

I bow to your very much superior knowledge of ''e" sailing matters. Accordingly, I agree with your observations. I particularly like your first recommendation - to delete RRS E3.7, 

As it stands, the only chance an OCS boat has to return and start in a 'U' or 'B' flag start, is if she hasn't been informed she is OCS by the RC - because once she is "informed" by the RC, rule E3.7 requires that she leaves the course area. [And once she leaves the course she can hardly return to the starting line to start] 

There is no obligation under E3.7 for the RC to "inform" and action under RRS 29.1 is not required because 29.1 doesn't apply under E3.5.. 

We all talk about the ideal of simple rules and here is a perfect example of the complication we so dislike.

Cheers Gordon, Hope you're keeping fit and well.     Phil.



 
Created: Mon 15:42
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Reply to: 19185 - Phil Mostyn
action under RRS 29.1 is not required because 29.1 doesn't apply under E3.5..
 Phil,
You wrote: action under RRS 29.1 is not required because 29.1 doesn't apply under E3.5.. 

To be clear: RRS E5 changes 29.1, replacing the X flag by a hail. E5 states that the does not apply when RRS 30.3 and 30.4 apply, so there is no requirement to hail a boat that is UFD or BFD. Sorry to be pedantic.

Personally I would prefer to replace the whole of  E5 by ' The Race Committee may inform a boat that she has broken rule 30.3 or 30.4.' This is useful for competitors
In which case: 
- the boat has been  informed that she has broken a rule, and will be scored UFD or BFD without a hearing.
- a boat so informed a boat is required to retire promptly (Case 65)
- however, under Case 140, she is entitled to protest the other boat, and return to start correctly. In which case she may be exonerated for her breach of 30.3 or 30.4 and scored in her finishing position.

Created: Tue 10:11
Phil Mostyn
Nationality: Australia
Ha ha, Gordon, I don't think you were pedantic. We all try to be precise in these pages.

RRS E3.5 replaces the whole RRS 29.1 as you say, and accordingly, in the case of 30.3 and 30.4 starts, the E3.5 replacement doesn't apply,  hence no 29.1 Signals and no E3.5 hail .

I think the rule makers wern't considering Radio Sailing when composing their questions and answers in Case 140, because E3.7 isn't listed in the menu of rules considered, and RRS E3.7 particularly affects 30.4 in the case of a General Recall, because the RC is required to inform the boats OCS - thus activating rule E3.7.

I suppose once a boat has left the course area she might think; " there's nothing to say I can't return, so back I go". But I think that's wild west stuff, Oh, come t think of it, I live in the wild west of AUS. Hey, I seem to recall that you;ve officiated in Radio Sailing here in WA so you know what it's like.      Phil.
Created: Yesterday 01:24
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Gordon,   I would prefer to replace the whole of  E5 by ' The Race Committee may inform a boat that she has broken rule 30.3 or 30.4.' 

That would bring back the X flag for an individual recall under RRS 29.1

AFAICS, the point of RRS E3.5 and E3.6 is to get rid of flag signals.
Created: Yesterday 11:50
Gordon Davies
Nationality: Ireland
Reply to: 19188 - John Allan
My bad I meant to write E7.
Created: Yesterday 12:18
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more