Forums
The Racing Rules of Sailing |
1858 Posts
|
|
Rule 18 and Room at the Mark |
176 Posts
|
|
Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures |
110 Posts
|
|
Race Committee & Race Management |
83 Posts
|
|
Rules 2 and 69 |
49 Posts
|
|
Match and Team Racing Rules |
47 Posts
|
|
Training Materials, Presentations and Classes |
60 Posts
|
|
Share Your SI/NOR Language |
49 Posts
|
|
Event Management & Forum System (Q's, Comments & Suggestions) |
178 Posts
|
|
Regole e dintorni - Italian Channel |
50 Posts
|
Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
Recent Posts
-
2 CommentsMichael Moradzadeh, Today 00:53
-
9 CommentsRichard Reitmeyer, Mon 04:03
-
2 CommentsPPaul Zupan, Thu 22:03
-
35 CommentsJustin Scott, Thu 15:22
-
24 CommentsPAnthony Pelletier, 26-Aug-04 17:43
Recent Comments
-
Looks nifty thanks Michael - will pass along to the Bodies here in the PhilippinesJohn Quirk Today 02:13
-
Justin said If a Laser, L, going upwind with the helmperson fully hiked, had the mainsheet explode at the transom, and the helm instead of letting his pfd displace in the water, tried to scramble into the boat such that the Laser heeled to windward almost capsizing to windward and the mast hit another competitor to windward.
Then I would strongly recommend that L did some penalty turns.
What rule do you say L broke?John Allan Today 01:16 -
Richard, thank you for your open minded response, but i agree with Sue that relaxing the promptness of the hail and RRS 44 penalty requirements would be undesirable.
One of the purposes of the suggestion was to reinforce the requirements for prompt hail and prompt response.
If you let go of those requirements you will get into all sorts of disputes about:- what incident the hail referred to,
- whether the hailed boat ever took a penalty for that incident, and
- whether there was advantage.
John Allan Yesterday 14:31 -
AIUI the purpose of making the respondent (not a word in this RRS) field mandatory is that the system automatically messages that entity that they are the subject of a hearing. Naming a boat there will make it appear that that boat has been protested.
Wouldn't a better solution for requests fo redress be to either omit the respondent field or make it non mandatory, and message the race committee that a request has been received in every case?John Allan Yesterday 14:20 -
Thank you for everything that you do.Justin Scott Yesterday 12:45