• Hitting a mark but not rounding it
  13 Comments
  Phil Macwhirter Fri 12:07
• Zone and RRS 18 in a HC fleet with boats of different lengths
  14 Comments
  Andrew Lesslie Wed 01:37
• Portsmouth Yardstick
  29 Comments
  Satish Kumar Kanwar 26-Mar-01 13:19
• An ERS question - a contradiction in F 1.6 vs F 1.7(b) (xi)
  3 Comments
  John Ball 26-Feb-26 01:57
• Race Score RRS 35
  6 Comments
  Satish Kumar Kanwar 26-Feb-25 02:23

• Portsmouth Yardstick
  Is it a fair* race if the wind drops 45 mins after the start? Just as the 420s cross the line but with oppies needing to do another lap.
  
  Is it a fair* race if the wind is 5kts for the first 45minutes and picks up to 15kts for the remainder but your 420s are all finishing in 5kts and the oppies get a blast for the last lap
  
  Is it a fair* race if you are an Oppie having just sailed race 1, for 60 minutes flat out in 20kts and done the same number of laps as the 420 who finishes 15 minutes ago, and as soon as you finish the class flag is hoisted for race 2, giving you no break while the 420 has had time for a drink and a snack and to adjust some sail settings 
  
  If you add something like a Musto Skiff into the mix have they actually agot bored and gone home after Race 1 because they do more time waiting to race than racing
  
  *Many will argue nothing about PY is fair.  But without average lap, you are adding another reason for people to hate it.
  Calum Polwart Today 08:04
• Hitting a mark but not rounding it
  Up to 1969 the penalty for touching a mark was to retire.  No options.
  
  In the 1969 RRS (Rule 52) the option of (if the mark was in navigable water) of re-rounding the mark was introduced.
  
  The 1977 RRS introduced a 360 degree penalty if the mark was not surrounded by navigable water, but retained the re-rounding requirement if it was.
  
  The One Turn Penalty for all mark touches was introduced in the 1989 RRS.
  John Allan Yesterday 22:28
• Zone and RRS 18 in a HC fleet with boats of different lengths
  Richard, I don't think you are correctly applying the definition of zone.
  
  Here is the definition
  
  Zone The area around a mark within a distance of three hull lengths of the boat nearer to it. A boat is in the zone when any part of her hull is in the zone.
  
  There is nothing in the definition about it ceasing to apply when there is a change in the boat nearest to the mark.
  
  As between two boats there will always be a boat nearer to the mark (if boats appear equal, applying the last point of certainty principle explained above), and there will always be a zone as defined.
  
  And, by the by, there was nothing in the OP about the mark being an obstruction.
  John Allan Yesterday 22:07
• Safety Regulations
  Roger, et al,  Could you provide some more detail about how Seagulls work please.
  
  Is a Seagull different from a Beach Maeshall/Master?
  
  What exactly are the duties and tasks of the Seagulls?
  
  What documents/lists do they use?
  
  How do they interact with the CRO?
  John Allan 26-Mar-01 23:01
• Rule 40.2.b ......at all times while afloat that day
  Calum Polwart said

  I'm not suggesting protesting a dead sailor, 

  
  Neither was I. I was suggesting the reason to enable 40.2(b) was to avoid the headline. Or at least to avoid the subsequent articles of "racer wore lifejacket during race, but took it off to sail home and then drowned"

  
  I don't think OA/RC should be doing things 'to avoid headlines'.  I think the quite legitimate reason for displaying flag Y ashore would be to reduce the risk to sailors.
  
  

  and I wouldn't expect an OA to want to do anything for other than an egregious breach.

  
  Neither would I.

  
  

  I think it would be almost inconceivable for committee or OA to protest against a competitor who had been the subject of a rescue at sea.
  
  

   And I struggle to decide what an egregious breach is! Someone burning their lifejacket in protest perhaps!

  
  It might be that a race committee observing a careless and foolhardy breach of the requirement might choose to protest, particularly if the risk was a well publicised matter of concern.
  
  

  However, does that fact it is in the RRS and enabled by the SI mean the OA might be forced to investigate?

  
  

  The local maritime authority requires us to report and investigate incidents and provide reports, but absent any such regulatory requirement why should it?
  
  Did you perhaps mean 'forced to protest a boat?
  
  The answer to that is:  certainly not.
  
  Case 39 

  
  A race committee is not required to protest a boat.

  
  

  I can imagine the scenario where to bitter rivals are competing at an event. The prizes come down to the final race.  The 'gold medal winner' sails home without his lifejacket on. Can silver (his bitter rival) protest? 

  
  

  Absolutely they can.
  
  In my opinion (20673 above),  if the event has ended and the protest committee has left the event the Organising Authority has a discretion whether or not to appoint the old or a new protest committee to hear the protest.
  
  
  

  And in my other doomsday situation. A club (the OA) has hosted the same event for 3 years. They have enabled 40.2(b) identically for 3 years.  They did so to reduce the risks of an adverse incident being attributed to their event (it might well be stated on the risk assessment for instance). In years 1 and 2, it was known that sailors then sailed without lifejackets on the way home.  No adverse incident occurs in year 1 and 2. But no actual enforcement of the rule took place because the breach wasn't felt egregious.
  
  In year 3 a sailor falls overboard without a lifejacket on, while sailing home.  At the subsequent enquiry, the OA are asked to attend and state they considered the risks, they even enabled 40.2(b) knowing that should mitigate the risks. How might failure to enforce 40.2(b) affect them¿

  
  Who knows what some officious safety authority will decide.
  
  

  I'm based at an inland dinghy club. We have a 100% PFD rule for on the water and on the jetty (our jetty doesn't float).  There are times it isn't enforced (it's a nice sunny day, the risks are low, the sailor is very competent and just walking along the jetty to collect something and return ashore... ...but rules are rules... ...not that I expect disqualification! 
  
  It feels like [NP] [DP] could be helpful here. 

  
  I don't like the idea of NP for a safety rule. That is discouraging competitors from taking safety seriously.  DP O could cope with.
  
  

  But it also feels like if sailors are leaving your water 40.2(b) might not be helpful even if the risk manager feels it is

  
  That's an OA governance issue.  Brave OA that appoints a Risk Manager then refuses to implement his considered advice. 
  
  
  John Allan 26-Feb-27 05:45

Forums Leader Board

This Month