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
-
4 CommentsPJohn Quirk, Today 08:25
-
30 CommentsÓlafur Bjarnason, Yesterday 17:08
-
27 CommentsPJohn Allan, Thu 10:54
-
2 CommentsPJohn Quirk, Tue 09:12
-
20 CommentsPBenjamin Harding, Tue 09:12
Recent Comments
-
Ian In some classes it makes perfect sense.
I disagree. It may be expedient, but it is not perfect.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.
Well, lots of classes and national organizations control how series are run, through Conditions of Racing and standard SI.
If the are all that perfect and well considered:- firstly why do the need changing?
- secondly, if there are local factors that necessitate change, then this should have been taken care of in the master document, by something like 'unless SSI say otherwise';
- thirdly, from a governance point of view, IMHO, any changes should be made by the entity publishing the original document, not by a local race committee.
Occasionally, items arise at a specific venue or point in the season where amending these within event-specific Supplementary SIs is helpful,
A Standard SI and Supplementary SI document structure is different from NOR/SIrather than posting "big" amendments to the MESIs.
An amendment is an amendment is an amendment (or for purists, using the word in the RRS a 'change'). There is no such thing as a 'little' amendment: Roger Casement was hanged for a virgule, and a change from 'and' to 'or' can make a massive difference in the meaning of a rule.
In my opinion, if anyone is going to change the master document, it should be the owner of the master document, and they should do that by a formal amendment.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.
See above: if there is something that relies on local conditions, then it should probably not be in the NOR, but if the NOR needs to be changed, I don't believe that taking a shortcut by trying to allow the SI to change the NOR is a good practice, and should not be encouraged by putting a precedence of documents provision in the NOR overriding RRS 63.5.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.
Well, we can find something we agree on.
Big strong CAs like the Optis, aren't much of a problem, except when their advising IRO has distinctly different ideas from the RO appointed for an event, but smaller CAs sometimes don't have good governance and good rules advice about their Championship NOR or SI requirements in the first place: it only takes a few years of uncritical tinkering to make a mess of a classes Conditions of Racing.John Allan Today 22:39 -
Niko, I ask because one of the classes I race on has a half wish-boom
Are you sailing a Liberty?John Allan Today 22:00 -
As you are probably aware the IJ Seminar 20 Questions are to get you thinking about complex and unusual issues and refamiliarising yourself with some less used rules. Your 'solutions' are not handed in or assessed, although the intelligence and diligence you demonstrate in the discussions may influence the senior IJ presenting in your favour. It always helps if presenters think well of you and want to help you get along.
So, you need to describe how you would want the scenario to play out. Don't forget to look at RRS M6.
You need to keep a sense of perspective: it is a breach of good manners, it has no effect on the fairness of the competition and is not an issue involving protection of competitors from harassment, bullying etc. While it is serious, and in the old money is undoubtedly gross misconduct, it is not World War 3: it is at the lower end of criminality.
You do not need a 'qualified' investigator: who you choose to investigate is up to you.
You do not need any legal advice to conduct a RRS 69 hearing. There is no decision a protest committee can make under RRS 69.2(h) that can have any legal repercussions: The only actions a protest committee can take under RRS 69.2(h) affect places in races at the event. This cannot lead to, for example CAS proceedings for restraint of trade. Of course the protest committee should exercise discretion in making any communications about the matter that may be defamatory (see RRS 63.6(c) and (d)).
Obviously this is a time-line problem. The scenario opens after close of business and you need to fit in the procedures required by RRS 69.2 in between when you receive the initial information and when you want any penalty, such as exclusion from racing, to apply. You will need to pay particular attention to:- time required to identify and appoint an investigator and time for the investigator to carry out their investigations;
- time required to draft and produce the written notice to the person, and to effectively deliver that notice to the person,
- what is a reasonable time to be allowed to the person to prepare for the hearing.
and how this can all be fitted in to the racing schedule.
While it is not strictly a requirement, I would want to talk to the Regatta Chair or a senior Flag Officer or Board Member of the OA and find out how seriously they view the incident, and broadly, what they would like to see happen. I would be cautious about placing too much reliance on what a staff manager of the host club tells you.
Just note the following:- RRS 69.2(a) requires a protest committee of at least three members.
- Actions under RRS 69.2, such as deciding whether or not to hold a hearing and appointing an investigator are actions of the protest committee: the protest committee chair is not authorised to take these actions without the agreement of the committee.
- The appointment of an investigator under RRS 69.2(c) is conditional on the protest committee deciding that they need more information to enable them to decide whether or not to call a hearing: if you initially decide to call a hearing, you cannot appoint and get the benefit of an investigator after you make that decision.
John Allan Today 14:15 -
G is plodding along downwind, trailing, setting up for a routine port tack rounding. She should be set up for a windward drop, maybe with the pole off, in which case she will have no problem gybing back after luffing to keep clear of Y, or maybe she will still have the pole up: if she leaves the pole up too long after the drop, she'll be in trouble. Dropping the pole quickly and tacking the headsail over the pole requires people to know what and how to do it. I think that is right on the cusp of 'competent but not expert', but maybe it's a little on the 'very competent' side.
I know this isn't relevant to the question, but I agree with this analysis but take it one step further. If it was a dipole boat, Blue's pole would be in the process of coming off at position 2. When Yellow starts the tack, Blue jibes onto starboard and starts dousing the spinnaker on the port side, crosses in front of Yellow, then jibes back. This sets up a faster rounding (wide to tight) for Blue. I also agree this would need a 'very competent' crew.Ian Morrison Today 13:58 -
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