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.
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.