Forums
The Racing Rules of Sailing |
1829 Posts
|
|
Rule 18 and Room at the Mark |
176 Posts
|
|
Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures |
110 Posts
|
|
Race Committee & Race Management |
79 Posts
|
|
Rules 2 and 69 |
49 Posts
|
|
Match and Team Racing Rules |
46 Posts
|
|
Training Materials, Presentations and Classes |
59 Posts
|
|
Share Your SI/NOR Language |
49 Posts
|
|
Event Management & Forum System (Q's, Comments & Suggestions) |
173 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
-
0 CommentsPJohn Quirk, Today 08:25
-
26 CommentsÓlafur Bjarnason, Yesterday 17:08
-
26 CommentsPJohn Allan, Thu 10:54
-
2 CommentsPJohn Quirk, Tue 09:12
-
20 CommentsPBenjamin Harding, Tue 09:12
Recent Comments
-
Rene, a quick reply on the use of "Proper Course"
You raise quite a lot of points in your post. I'll try to reply to them.
Any assertion regarding [a boat's] "proper course" is ... irrelevant unless a rule that expressly relies on the concept of proper course has first been shown to apply.
Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by 'expressly relies on'. I'll take it that you mean no more than 'expressly refers to'.
That would be, in addition to the Definition Proper Course itself, Definition Mark-room, RRS 17, RRS 18.1(a)(2), RRS 18.4, and RRS 23.2.
To consider any specific matter in a protest committee's deliberations, it is by no means necessary to 'show' that a certain rule applies. Protest committees need to be prepared to consider all rules that may apply.Furthermore, the rules governing this incident do not generally require a determination of Yellow's proper course. Rights and obligations arise from the applicable right-of-way and mark-room rules, including Rules 10, 13, 15, 16, 18.1, 18.2
And also including RRS 23.2 which contains a proper course exception.
within this discussion ... Any assertion regarding Yellow's "proper course" is unsupported by the evidence
When judges are discussing a written 'rules problem', by convention, they do not rely on any fact not stated in the problem, for example if there is no mention of contact, then it is taken that contact did not occur. It is, however useful to make some assumptions for the sake of discussion, for example, in a diagram, that the wind is coming from the top of the page, or, as in this case, that the next mark is to windward. Some of these assumptions will be stated, some just made and then left open to challenge by others participating in the discussion
Just as in a live protest hearing, judges will consider all the evidence available including diagrams, textual descriptions, images, and some 'notorious facts' ('notorious' being used in its proper meaning of well-known, not 'infamous'), like boats will normally sail close hauled at about 45 to 40 degrees to the wind.
I think it's a pretty fair assumption in this case that this is a normal W/L course and the next mark is to windward. Anyone that wants to challenge this is welcome to do so, as Anthony did in post 21762.The Racing Rules of Sailing define a boat's proper course as the course she would sail to finish as soon as possible in the absence of the other boats referred to in the rule using the term. Proper course is therefore a factual determination, not an assumption. It depends on numerous variables, including wind strength, sea state, boat characteristics, sail trim, tactical decisions, and the intended method of rounding the mark. None of this information has been established in the facts presented.
I think judges are perfectly entitled to assume that the situation is 'normal', until there is evidence to the contrary.
FWIW, an assertion that a boat is sailing her proper course would be a 'conclusion' rather than a fact found: it involves reasoning and judgement, see Case 104.
There is no evidence to demonstrate what Yellow's proper course was before or after tacking. Any statement that Yellow did or did not sail her proper course is therefore speculative and cannot be relied upon as a finding of fact.
A boat can have more than one proper course. Where the next mark is to windward, her proper course may be to sail close hauled on either tack. There may be times when a boat's proper course is to tack.Unless it is first established that a rule requiring consideration of proper course is applicable, Yellow's proper course is legally irrelevant to the analysis.
It may be that Yellow's proper course is irrelevant to the conclusions and decisions, but it may be by no means irrelevant to the analysis.
And there's nothing 'legal' about a protest hearing or a discussion among judges.
Even if Rule 18.3 is argued to apply, the issue is not whether Yellow sailed her proper course, but whether she complied with the specific obligations imposed by that rule.
RRS 18.3 is an interesting proposition.
At an enormous stretch you could say, if there was justification like a shift or a puff, that the proper course of G at the mark is to tack, so RRS 18 is not switched off in its entirety by RRS 18.1(a)(2).
I think that once Y changes course to windward so that she is no longer sailing more than ninety degrees from the true wind, she is sailing away from the mark (increasing distance between her and the mark), so she is 'leaving' the mark, and RRS 18 is switched off by RRS 18.1(a)(3).
So RRS 18.3 does not apply.
Also
Y passes head to wind from port to starboard in the zone of a mark to be left to port.
RRS 18.3 says that RRS 18.2 does not apply between her and another boat on starboard tack that is fetching the mark.
A boat is fetching a mark when she is in a position to pass to windward of it and leave it on the required side without changing tack.
G is not in a position to pass to windward of the mark and leave it on the required side (port).
G is neither on starboard tack nor fetching the mark. RRS 18.3 does not applyThose obligations depend on objective facts, such as where Yellow completed her tack, whether Rule 18 still applied between the boats, and whether Green was required to sail above close-hauled as a consequence of Yellow's actions. They do not require speculation about the course Yellow might have chosen in the absence of Green.
Yes, even though RRS 18.3 does not apply, when it does it does not depend on proper course.Accordingly, any argument based on Yellow's proper course lacks both factual foundation
I disagree, we have the diagram, the textual description, which in this context we should accept as evidence of facts, and some challengeable assumptions.
That's quite sufficient for our purposes of discussion.and legal relevance unless the applicable rule has first been identified
Yes, a potentially applicable rule should be identified, but for the purposes of discussion or protest committee deliberation, it does not need to be proved to be applicable.
Rules that are proved to be applicable and broken will be shown in the protest committee's Conclusions, and of course, these must be supported by Facts Found.and the necessary factual evidence established. In the absence of such evidence, references to Yellow's proper course should not be relied upon when determining whether Yellow complied with the Racing Rules of Sailing.
John Allan Today 07:53 -
In some classes it makes perfect sense. Optimists in Ireland and UK use a season- long set of SIs (Major Event SIs) which have been beaten, prodded, tested, corrected and hammered into a robust form by a number of IROs/NROs/IJs/NJs used to cover regional, national and other fleet events at club level. Occasionally, items arise at a specific venue or point in the season where amending these within event-specific Supplementary SIs is helpful, rather than posting "big" amendments to the MESIs.
Same applies to NOR, particularly where these may be drafted and issued months in advance (even the prior year) for e.g. National Champs, major events such as Cowes/Cork/DL.
Fully agree this needs to be managed carefully and the earlier the actual Race officials can help with review the better, and stay away from the "contract" elements for sure!!
Ultimately - I always prefer drafting/reviewing both together, even if the SIs then sit in a drawer until the event.Ian Venner Yesterday 06:24 -
As long as the jib clew is being held by a 55.3(c) jib-boom, I contend (thus far) that I can find no rule which limits the use of a handheld pole/stick to push/hold the boom forward .. whether or not this stick makes contact with the boom inside/outside the shear line, as long as such a pole is not directly contacting the jib sheet, clew or sail
Do we agree on that singular point?
Yes that is my understanding.John Allan Sat 12:48 -
Interestingly, I have just researched MLS Rules - The mid-90's American modified 'soccer' rules. It didn't really work.
However, MLS did have a countdown timer as Ang describes as well as some other variations to the traditional game. MLS Penalties were pretty funky.
The MLS rules lasted 4 years.
------------
In this research, I find that the football rule makers, IFAB, remains institutionally conservative and deliberately resistant to game changes.
------------
I'm also finding that what I see as poor sportsmanship is, in some places, seen as the art of being street-smart and 'doing whatever it takes to win for your team'. Perhaps all those dives and feigned injuries I saw Columbia doing the other night were heroic... to Columbians. Tactics celebrated as "viveza" or "gamesmanship".
If half the footballing world are happy with that, things will never change.
On-field tactics such as shirt-pulling, heckling the ref, appealing when knowingly last touched, diving and feigning injury will always be worth-a-go. If you can't beat them, join them. Off the field, the unseen underworld will continue to prop up the sport, rightly or wrongly.
I don't think there is a solution coming any time soon.Benjamin Harding Fri 16:11 -
Yes John, as I said there were obvious limitations with the selected model (not ideal of course but reflective of the reality of funds availability) – albeit, implemented from the outset on an ‘eyes-wide-open’ basis by all the parties, as I understood.
By ‘senior IJ online support’ if needed, I mean to simply call on an ad hoc basis - where second opinion felt needed to be sought – and to remotely follow things.We have attempted to recruit more JITs here (just myself at present) to no real avail so far but are actively seeking same for the future seasons.Appendix T route was included in the SI’s, for those applicable matters (in fact, it was well engaged in the third regatta) - but is still a bit ‘novel’ for competitors here it would seem (I have also noticed that some IJs are supportive of Arbitration process and others are not).The process of elevating any Appeals was fully understood by all (via MNA etc) – just that none were forthcoming.
That being said, it all seemed to go along quite well 'considering' – from the perspective of MNA, OA (budgets) and competitors etc. I am not sure yet if this model will be selected again or otherwise for the coming National Season4 or a more conventional approach adopted (TBC), and for myself, I will just fit-in again with what is selected by them.John Quirk Fri 02:44