As we all know, Rule 3 puts the sole responsibility for participation and continuation of a race in the hands of the participant. There are no Cases referencing Rule 3 that I'm aware of, that might clarify the Rule. Probably because it's so clearly written.
To quote:
"3 DECISION TO RACE
The responsibility for a boat's decision to participate in a race or to continue racing is hers alone."
Yet, in various discussions on-line, there have been suggestions that in some way the Race Officer (RO) or the Organizing Authority (OA) can decide things like: "It's too windy" or "The weather forecast is dangerous" and delay or cancel a race.
Over the years we have learned that when an OA publishes a Notice of Race (NoR), they are effectively offering up a contract to competitors that they will hold the event under a specific set of rules as describe in the NoR. Competitors often commit significant financial and time resources to holding up their side of the contract with the OA. Indeed, competitors have threatened a lawsuit when OA's have attempted to change the NoR at the last minute. This is primarily because in some races people either build or deeply modify their boat to fit the description of what's legal as stated in the NoR. In the past, in cases I'm personally aware of, the OA has relented under the duress of being sued for violation of the agreement.
Given the clarity of Rule 3 and the binding nature of the NoR, it seems that the RO may not have the authority to cancel, delay, or modify a race unless that authority is expressly given in the NoR, Class Rules, or the RRS. Yet, we find this happening all the time due to weather conditions, the opinion of the RO on when the competitors will finish, and various other factors that are not listed in the NoR. It would seem that the OA and RO are infringing on Rule 3, as they expressly do not have the authority to make these changes.
Obviously, conformance with local laws would trump the contractual rights of the parties, but that does not seem to be happening when an RO makes a judgement that it's "Too windy to race."
Thoughts??
• is the committee boat capable of leaving the harbour/motoring to site in headseas/staying on station at anchor to provide fair start & finish lines
• is club/OA equipment safe in the prevailing conditions (needing to recover RIBs provided for rescue cover for competitors in a worsening forecast/shorebreak as tide goes out etc)
• are safety crews and race committees safe in the prevailing/forecast conditions - ROs have considerations for their wellbeing too, particularly if they get involved with helping a competitor in trouble
• worst case scenario, would running racing poorly (ie allowing it to continue in inappropriate conditions) then prevail upon other safety services, for example would the RNLI (in the UK) need to be called out if the committee boat foundered?
It would be lovely to say that applying 'common sense' to the wider scenario would be enough when an RO decides to run any given race or not, but the biggest limitation on this is that the sense is rarely 'common'.
We are all entitled to a different opinion, but I would hope that sailing could remain more 'rugby' than 'soccer' on this, and accept that the decision of the official running the event is final, without the agressive backchat....no matter how much we may disagree at the time?
One might add, too that holding a race in marginal conditions in which a good number of competitors will stay ashore and in which one may anticipate numerous retirements will have a significant effect on the series results. Opinion will vary on whether this favours the competent and well prepared or the foolhardy and lucky.
RRS 32.1
After the starting signal, the race committee may shorten the course or abandon the race:
(a)
because of foul weather,
(b)
because of insufficient wind making it unlikely that any boat will sail the course within the race time limit,
(c)
because a mark is missing or out of position, or
(d)
for any other reason directly affecting the safety or fairness of the competition.
You’ve already mentioned the NOR & SI; however, it’s very clear that the RC has authority before the race starts and after the starts to abandon the race.
About RRS 3, per Dave Perry:
“There have been attempted lawsuits brought unsuccessfully against race committees by sailors who have had accidents during races in strong winds. Their contentions have been, in part, that the race committee has jeopardized their safety by holding races in severe conditions. The decision to start, postpone or abandon a race is within the jurisdiction of the race committee (see rule 90.1, Race Committee; Sailing Instructions; Scoring). Rule 61.4(b)(1) (Redress Decisions) should not be interpreted to restrict or interfere with its authority and responsibilities in matters of race management. Under rule 3, each boat has the sole responsibility to decide whether or not to race. And if a boat decides not to race, she cannot claim her score was made worse through no fault of her own. (See Appeal 39.)
Notice that it is the boat’s responsibility to decide. Every sailor on a boat has the responsibility to voice his or her opinion as to whether or not to start or to continue to race. Nothing in this rule protects an owner, skipper or helmsperson from a liability suit by
Thanks for some great comments. A quick clarifying set of comments:
First, Rule 3 only applies to "boats" and not Race Committees or anyone else. The RC clearly has the right to make their own determination about the safety of their crew and equipment, and decide to stay ashore if they can't run the race.
It is also the case that all sailing activities within a Country's jurisdiction are subject to the control of that Country's government.
Rob's comment about Rules 27.3 and 32.1 are on target and I over reached when I said this might conflict with Rule 3. Those rules certainly apply.
As to sailing venues where there are known risk, similar to David's excellent comment about a tidal race, it would be a simple matter to state this in the race documents. This would alert competitors to both the danger and the reason that the RC might take action. Many NoRs and SIs make statements to the effect that developing weather at sea during the race can be extremely dangerous etc... By making these things explicit, and providing the RC with something to point at, the sailors might better understand what can appear to them to be a rather arbitrary decision.
Indeed there have been occasions I've waited in a fleet during wonderfully raceable conditions and it would appear the only reason the AP is still up is that 'it's lunchtime' and we're somewhere that it's completely normal that lunch is a 60-120 minute affair with a bottle of wine.
That is still at the ROs discretion. As much as it is each boat's decision to start or continue to race, it is each owner's decision to consider the venue, prevailing wind conditions for the time of year, tides for the dates of the event, and even reputation of the club/nation/RO for having 7am starts, long lunchbreaks, cancelling racing at 2pm when a solid seabreeze is expected at 3.30pm and so on when they respond to the NOR & put their entry in...
An NOR doesn't need to get any more wordy to cover all these potential scenarios. Have a polite word with the RO after the fact if a race is cancelled, postponed or abandoned & it's still not clear to you what their reasons were?
Bruno, - thank you and you make your points well. These days pretty much every event starts with a risk assessment (or it should) and in the event that something goes badly wrong, this would be the starting point in any investigation. The notion that an OA/RC can hide behind the rule that it is it the competitors responsibility to sail/not sail doesn't absolve the RO from a duty of care towards entrants and support volunteers. I would argue that our job, as ROs, is to ensure that the racing is 'fair' but if conditions reach the point where fairness is questionable because of the conditions, then that alone suggests that the event shouldn't be continued.
Yes, it's a brief, simple, clear assertion about an extremely contentious and complex area of law.
The discussion seems to be moving towards whether the RO should or must do these things, or may be legally liable if he or she does not do these things.
I suggest that the liability of the race officer will be massively affected by the national and domestic legal jurisdiction that applies.
Those cases were decided in England and in the USA, respectively over 125, and over 30 years ago. Since those times there have been extensive statutory changes to the laws of contract and tort in those jurisdictions. While the principle that entry to a sailing race forms some sort of contract or enforceable agreement, probably still stands, it may well be that all sorts of obligations and entitlements in the rules are severable and do not form an enforceable part of that contract.
Yes, and possibly because the OA agrees that such changes are unfair and not made in adequate time, in breach of RRS 89.2(b).
This is quite a different issue to the postponement or abandonment of a race.
See above: that authority is expressly given by RRS 27.3 and 32.1.
They do have that authority and RRS 3 certainly does not say otherwise.
RRS3 only comes into play if a race is scheduled or actually in progress.
Beau, to my mind what's caused the confusion is that you said "participation and continuation of a race " but RRS3 says "participation and continuation in a race ". The continuation OF a race is an RC responsibility, but further continuation IN a race is an individual boat's responsibility.
In the uk rule 3 may not assist the ro when there are minors under 18, who do not have the capacity to make the sail decision.
Race committees can tell if inbound storms having lightning, using radios and Internet devices. These devices are not legal to be carried on boats many dinghy classes, including Optis and Lasers. Furthermore, one can’t operate these devices when racing a dinghy.
So, the race committee should be allowed to order boats back to shore, because they have potentially life saving information that competitors don’t.
We could stick with with a strict interpretation of Rule 3, and leave competitors with the sole responsibility, but it won’t help our participation levels if people are getting killed or seriously injured in our sport.
"they expressly do not have the authority to make these changes"
is not the same as
"they do not expressly have the authority to make these changes."
Organiser's Duty of Care vs Participants' Voluntary Assumption of Rsk (or similar) is a well documented area of law in most jurisdictions.
Rule 3 handles the participant's side
The Duty of Care of the organisers does not need handling in RRS because it is a basic legal obligation of pretty much everyone. All that's needed are the rules to allow the organisers to exercise their duty of care. (Discussed already.)
The phrase 'duty of care ' is used very frequently. It actually has no useful meaning unless it is accompanied by a legally precise statement of
Its pretty clear that an organising authority, a race committee and a race officer will owe a duty of care to competitors, but exactly what that duty is, and whether liability for neglect of that duty can or is waived may be far from clear.
That said, I suggest that no amount of fancy dancing around RRS 3, or lawyer smart words in NOR/SI will protect OA/RC/RO if they do not competently and conscientiously do a risk assessment and implement necessary controls.
This is a far too sweeping statement of the duty of care.
As Cardozo j said, liability in negligence cannot be imposed "in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class".
I look to him for food and parking
Who is he in the event management structure?
Presumably a oa muscelling in on the rc they have appointed.
The ro is responsible for safety and racing
Do you know what an event director is? The rule book is silent.
The Organising Authority isn't 'muscling in'
RRS 90.1 expressly gives the OA the power to direct the race committee.
No reall casualties, expected large wind came and they were not off the water as the risk assessment said, as one race late because of recalls, and i assume they just wanted to finish the race.
10 had finished before the wind struck.
When racing is to be abandoned because of foul weather should always be discussed in a management meeting before the event starts, ensuring that OA, RC, Safety Team, Class Reps etc agree. The Safety Plan should give guidance on this question - taking account of any class guidelines if they exist. WS Race Management Policy also gives guidance and may be adapted for the circumstance.
Competitors need to know the conditions in which they may be called upon to race. Which is why so many class championship regulations set out maximum wind speeds.
A final point: sending a fleet out in conditions that are known to be marginal leading to a dangerous situation with damage, injury or worse, requiring external assistance for lifeboat etc, can hardly be considered as enhance the reputation of sailing as safe family friendly outdoor activity!
D
https://www.sailing.ie/Library/Racing#risk-assessment-forms
This includes a detailed safety plan template, an incident report form, a risk assessment form and guidance to race officials.
I hope that this may be of interest.
Irish Sailing now recognises qualified Safety Leaders as race officials. There is a curriculum for training and candidates may qualify at Local , Regional or National Level
It sounds good, but what does this mean Gordon?
As a matter of good practice, I have found it valuable to meet with the class captain(s) to discuss any decision not to race. Doing so also supports the subsequent announcement to competitors, as it allows me to present not only the reasons for cancelling racing but also to state that the class captain(s) concur with the decision.
On one occasion when I was serving as PRO, the wind conditions were very strong. Although the fleet was generally composed of experienced sailors, there were a few less‑skilled competitors, but I nevertheless felt that racing could proceed. During the briefing, I made it clear that any sailor who felt unable to manage the wind strength should not launch. I emphasised that if all rescue boats became occupied assisting those who could not cope with the conditions, I would have no choice but to abandon racing for the entire fleet. Therefore, sailors who went afloat despite being unsure of their ability to handle the wind risked jeopardising the racing for everyone else. This message appeared to have the desired effect.
Safety Leaders are qualified race officials, as are Judges, Umpires, Race officers, Results Managers and Mark Layers
Qualification is based on attending a course, passing a test, experience at events and on the water assessment.
An Irish Sailing National Safety Leader has the aptitude to lead the event safety team at a principal event.
Safety Leaders have to have appropriate Powerboat, VHF and First Aid Certs.
They work with OA and RC to coordinate safety procedures and manage the safety team. Many of the safety leaders also serve as volunteer life-boat crew (our lifeboat service is a vlountary organisation)
I totally think it is a good initiative by Irish Sailing to recognise the importance of proper training in safety management.
I guess I'm still trying to place 'Safety Leader' in the organisational framework.
This whole thread is about establishing boundaries and recognising overlaps between the RRS and the organiser in terms of safety management.
The words Race Official springs RRS 89 to mind and describing a Safety Leader as a 'Race Official' implies to me empowerment under the RRS. Yet, there is no role of Safety Leader in RRS.
Your last paragraph above partly answers my questions. The Safety leader is not part of the RC. That would have fit my conclusion that the Safety Leader was part of the OA.
But this is not implied by your last paragraph. So where do they fall?
Has Irish Sailing added, by means of prescriptuon, a new 'race official' role under RRS?
Or can we say this role is in fact part of the OA, in terms of the RRS?
In which case would we call them Event Officials or Organising Officials, reserving the term 'Race' official for those roles mentioned in RRS 89 which have obligations under RRS.
It wouldn't be hard to incorporate 'Safety Leader' into the RRS
Empowerment and job description in Part 7 via Prescriptions, or as rules in NOR/SI. Then a few modifications in other rules, say 27.1, 32 and perhaps 1.1.
But I don't see any 'safety role' in RRS otherwise.
The RRS don't include race officer.
Huh?
Ah... OK. I see what you are getting at. You are saying RRS does mot mention individual specific roles like Race Officer or Jury scribe. So why mention Safety Leader?
You're right.
Let me clarify my point.
I don't think Safety is a role of the RC. The RRS does not require any action regarding safety from the RC.
When I said incorporate 'Safety Leader', I should have simply said 'incorporate Safety' and left it at that.
Incorporating Safety as a rule would mean requiring someone to take ownership of go/no-go decisions. It could be a new committee or added on to the RC. Currently I think it is OA, but that has limited jurisdiction under the current rules.
The Safety Committee (SC) shall make a call to abandon a race for safety reasons. Rule 32 is changed that the RC shall abandon the race if instructed by the SC. Blah blah blah.
That kind of thing.
Thanks.
Every single session of RO training I've ever attended or presented has said flatly
The Race Officer is responsible for safety.
I'm really not disputing that the RO is ultimately responsible... just like the captain of a flight has final say on everything.
What I said was that in no part of the RRS is there any explicit requirement to act on Safety as far as I can see.
Hence, we have this thread asking whether ROs are 'overreaching' because the boundaries and overlaps of responsibility are grey.
Interestingly from the same paragraph as you quoted.. " There is therefore an implied duty of care in race management. In addition, the World Sailing Code of Behavior requires all race management personnel to be responsible for their actions concerning the safety and welfare of race participants."
As I started out in this thread, the duty of care is really the only requirement to act on safety.
I think that may be because the WS drafters of the RRS, relying on RRS 3, want to avoid creating any contractual obligation for safety on the part of OA or Race Officials.
Yes, the OA's and Race Officials obligations about safety arise from their duty of care in tort law.
Keyword Search Safety:
RRS – 5
Case Book - 16
Judges Manual – 18
WS Code of Conduct – 0
WS WORLD SAILING REGULATIONS – 4
CONVENTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA – 3 (‘safe’ – 12)
While sailing and racing sail boats is useful experience there are specific skills to handling a small powerboat in poor conditions in close proximity to boats and sailors that need to be acquired in order to intervene effectively and safely as a member of a safety team.
In fact, most of our safety and mark-laying volunteers are not, or are no longer, active racing sailors
Our National Power boat Training Scheme:
One advantage of certifying safety crew is that they all operate using the same procedures and protocols. This avoids confusion in stressful conditions.
You validate my point.
Philip,
When I have the unfortunate necessity to be rescue by the lifeboat, or by air-sea rescue helicopter, I infinitely prefer the people coming to save me to be highly trained and experienced, operating to known, tried and tested procedures. This is not a job for amateurs, however gifted.
In the same way, I feel more comfortable knowing that the person at the wheel of a powerful motor boat heading in my direction has had to demonstrate at least minimal knowledge of the rules of the road and the conventions of behaviour on the water.
The sailing community here in Ireland has decided, for many reasons, that sailors who volunteer to provide safety cover at our events, in particular youth events, are trained, experienced and operating to known, tried and tested procedures.
We are also integrating safety procedures in all other race official training.
In Ireland we sail in tough conditions, in the open sea, on the track of depressions coming in from the Atlantic. At the end of the summer my local waters may reach 15°C, maybe 16, in the winter the water may descend to 5°C. Our inland lakes are event colder in the winter.
Following several incidents that were extensively reported in the press, clubs now take safety very seriously. Anyone in charge of a motor vessel at an event must have a powerboat cert (and VHF licence). On each designated safety vessel there should be at least on person with either a safety vessel cert or safety leader cert. Preferably one of the crew will be wearing a wet or dry suit.
This means that the club, other race officials, competitors, coaches and support persons know that the safety function is being carried out by people who have demonstrated at least minimal competence, know the standard procedures that we have adopted here in Ireland.
I would add that there is a high degree of osmosis (in both directions) between our club safety personnel and the crew of the RNLI (the national lifeboat service).
Yes, the OA's and Race Officials obligations about safety arise from their duty of care in tort law.
This explains in part why RRS does not specify a duty of care. Laws governing the nature and degree of responsibility of a person or organisiation that may have caused damage, loss or harm to another vary greatly from one jurisdiction to another. The ex British Empire uses common law, while much of Europe is subject to various versions of Roman Law.
In our Race Official Regulations we are including the following:
The safety of all participants (competitors, support persons, race officials, volunteers, spectators and other stakeholders) shall be a priority for all IS-ROs. IS-ROs shall read all safety policies and procedures applying at an event and implement them to the best of their ability.
The decision to host or run a race belongs to the OA. The decision to participate in a race belongs to the boat.
Rule 3 exists because conditions which are marginal for one competitor may be the conditions that another competitor lives for.
At a major championship, for example world, regional or national championship, there is often a very wide range of skill sets participating. Some boats are there to win or place in the top quartile. They have spent many days training in high winds and waves. Some boats are there for the "bucket list" experience. We embrace and welcome both. It is not the responsibility of the OA or the PRO to assess the skill set of each boat. That responsibility lies squarely with each boat.
Rule 3 makes it clear that each boat should assess their own ability. At our club when we host a major regatta, we offer a timely and friendly reminder during the skippers briefing. There is honor and kudos to the skipper who makes the call to sit one out. We have a beautiful clubhouse, with a great upstairs bar that overlooks the race course. DNC in high wind conditions, is the mark of a responsible skipper who properly assessed his team and boat and put the joy of sailing first. We should congratulate them, and including them in the shortlist for the sportsmanship regatta trophy is not unwarranted.
Rule 3 protects competitors but it also protects the race volunteers. We reinforce that with legal waivers signed by every competitor.
OAs and PROs cannot and should not run racing for major regattas based on the lowest common denominator. We need Rule 3.
At the same time, competitors need to understand, that the OA and PRO can cancel or abandon racing for a whole host of reasons. Sometimes, this may include conditions that a competitor would relish. Most participants understand this, and appreciate the host of volunteers that makes our sport possible.