Translation missing: en.posts.shared.post_not_found

Powered by
WIND


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • I received the following hearing request at a regatta last year.
     
    image.png 56.8 KB
    Today 14:51
  • David thanks for that response.  WOW ... I hadn't realized how unfortunate and confusion-generating the wording of Case 53 was until now (hopefully that wording is getting worked on). Thanks for pointing that out. 

    RRS 15 does not apply when an already-ROW boat becomes obligated to give mark-room.  Even within RRS 15 itself, RRS 15's give-room obligation does not apply to a boat that becomes ROW by the other boat's actions.  

    "while maneuvering promptly in a seamanlike way" is a part of "room".  A ROW boat that becomes obligated to give room or mark-room to another boat, does not themselves become entitled to "room" to do so.

    The only "out" for MR for an outside boat is 18.2(d) and the conditions of that rule do not apply for the OP.  Other than RRS 18.2(d), there are no other "get out of jail free cards" for a boat obligated to give mark-room to another boat, if she does not do so (no exoneration under RRS 43 for breaking RRS 18 without a boat compelling her to do so). Yellow is not being compelled to break 18. 

    In Case 53 both boats maneuvered "immediately".  That is what myself and the folks on the "DSQ Yellow" team are saying. 

    Yellow's obligation to provide Blue MR occurs the moment her bow reached the zone.  When Yellow's bow reached the zone, Yellow did not act immediately to provide Blue a corridor to the mark.   

    Case 75 is applicable here. My point about Case 75 is that people misapply the corridor in situations where the boats are not close to each other. Yellow and Blue are close enough to be limiting each others maneuverability ... therefore Case 75's corridor is very applicable.
    Today 11:36
  • L'inziativa è fantastica, purtroppo ho richiesto verifica di situazioni accadute nella mia ultima regata e le risposte erano sbagliate.
    Piccoli dettagli sula regola 17 e mi ha indicato casi relativi alla regola 13 ....
    Anche la AI ha riconoscito gli errori commessi
    Screenshot 2025-07-15 alle 09.49.07.png 256 KB
    Today 07:51
  • Qu Chun, I beg to disagree with your disagreement.

    The race committee is the only entity authorised by the RRS to publish SI.

    The RRS do not recognise individuals such as Race Officers, or Technical Delegates.  The only entities recognised are the Organising Authority, the Race Committee, the Technical Committee, and the Protest Committee/Jury.

    I would suggest that the TD should be seen as the delegate of the OA, sometimes exercising the power of the OA to direct the Race Committee in accordance with RRS 90.1.

    Whoever may sign a Notice to Competitors announcing a change to the SI, it is the Race Committee that is responsible.
    Yesterday 01:54
  • Yes - "virtual" is a pretty lame word.

    I was struggling with the word 'signal' used in the definition. In general / nautical English a signal is a man-made visual or aural communication to mark a time, event or state. 

    How then can 'nothing' be a signal?  Even 'deeming' or' taking it to be' are a little loose. I thought about 'pseudo'. But yes, I agree.  'Virtual' doesn't really work.

    For fixed timings, I've seen it all. Exact start times listed, times offset from the first start and even just watch for your flags on the day. Agree with postponement issues, but with 21st technology it gets easier to recalculate and disseminate new times on the fly. 

    I guess the main point I have is that persuit style of starts changes a great deal of RRS26.  That can't be avoided. 

    Cheers. 



Forums Leader Board

This Month

1 John Allan 4K
2 Michael Butterfield 2.2K
3 David Taylor 1.6K
4 Jim Champ 1.6K
5 Benjamin Harding 1.5K
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more