RRS Definition of Finish Exception (a) says that a boat has not finished if, after crossing the finishing line, she takes a penalty under Rule 44.2.
The Scenario
Boat A crossed the finishing line from the course side. The Race Committee recorded her finish time. Someone on the committee boat thought they saw Boat A touch the mark as she crossed the line. After crossing, Boat A promptly made a single tack. Boat A did not cross the finishing line again. After a few minutes, Boat A sailed away from the finishing area. No hail or communication was received from Boat A. The RC did not protest Boat A. No other boat protested Boat A.
1. Is a single tack (or single gybe) promptly after crossing the line enough to show that Boat A “takes a penalty,” so that Boat A should be scored DNF?
2. !!Alternate Facts!! After crossing the finishing line, Boat A completed both the required tack and gybe for a penalty turn, but did not cross the finishing line again. Would Exception (a) apply, and should Boat A be scored DNF?
3. Would the conclusions be different if the Race Officer was sure Boat A touched a mark?
Rule A5.1 None of situations (a), (b) or (c) are fullfilled, so : Only the protest committee may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat's score. The only possible action of the race committee is to protest boat A.
Finish is part of Sail the Course. A boat that has not finished has not sailed the course. It's A5.1(a).
Sail the Course A boat sails the course when
(a)she starts;
(b)a string representing her track until she finishes, when drawn taut, (1)passes each mark of the course for the race on the required side and in the correct order (including the starting marks), (2)touches each mark designated in the sailing instructions to be a rounding mark, and (3)passes between the marks of a gate from the direction of the course from the previous mark; and then
You bypassed all the discussion I'd hoped for and got straight to it with the black and white of A5.1.
(I was hoping for a philosophical discussion on the logic of it all to arrive at the same conclusion...!)
Anyway, the reason for presenting this question is that I am not sure Finish(a) is that well understood by ROs and some competitors. At least I have seen similar scenarios which have resulted in DNF scores being applied by ROs in similar cases.. Some of these are never get caught because even competitors can also be a little unsure to question it when it happens.
The bottom line here..
...There should not be a case when a RO can apply Finish(a) themselves.
The key point in scenario 2 is that the boat did not return to finish. If she had the RC would score her in her finishing position the second time around. In scenario 1, the boat has finished, there is no protest against her, so she should be scored in her finishing position.
Agree in scenario A, the boat would need to be scored in her finishing position.
In your alternate facts, the boat takes a penalty under 44.2. Since her hull does not return completely to the course side of the line before she finishes, she has not finished per 44.2 and Finish definition (a). Thus she has not sailed the course (Sail the Course definition part (c)) and the RC can score her NSC under A5.1(a)
The more common situation I see is boats sailing through the line again. A good RC will ask each boat that does this if she is re-finishing. That's a lot of work though, and not always possible.
Am I even correct that the RC/finish boat is allowed to give the competitor the lower of the two scores there? Does the competitor NEED to report that re-finishing in order to receive it? How much of that is on the RC / finish boat?
Though we are trained to do so, RCs may not be justified in recording/scoring a second crossing. A boat is no longer racing after she clears the line and marks. Hence the finish line no longer exists for her.
When a boat crosses the finishing line from the course side twice, her second crossing constitutes her finish if, at all times between her first and second crossing, her actions are consistent with continuing ‘to sail the course’.
Finish is part of Sailg the Course. A boat that has not finished has not sailed the course. It's A5.1(a).
Ang,
In the scenario described, the Race Committee thinks or is sure boat A touched the finishing mark.
The RC doesn't have time or capacity or ability to think about the situation. It HAS TO score boat A to its finishing order.
If the RC writes this finishing order twice, it HAS TO score boat A at its second crossing, proper penalty taken or not.
If RC score boat A at its first finish, no other choice than prostesting, or, If RC, according to RRS 90.3.c consider it has made a mistake, it has to change the finishing order to the second crossing (only if proper penalty). Then wait for a request of redress from a boat.
If RC protest, the PC could decide an improper action of RC and re-install boat A to its first finishing order, then open a new protest (according RRS 63.2.b) from RC against boat A and decide its score has to be changed to the second crossing (or to DNF if no proprer penalty).
A lot of writing, papers, stress, and wasting time. But that's the job ?!!!
In sailing, (if not always in american life now), facts are facts.
Loïc .. I'm not disagreeing that the correct thing in this situation is for the RC to score the boat in her finish-place and protest the boat if she thinks she touched the mark.
I'm just making the point that, IF the RC determines (from their own information and records) a boat did not finish, she has the ability to score the boat NSC without a hearing under A5.1(a) as the boat did not sail the course.
I'm not suggesting that they should do that at all ... but you made the statement that A5.1 precluded the RC. The text of A5.1(a) and def: sail the course would suggest otherwise. - Ang
Angelo, Not quite sure. In the described scenario 1, boat A crosses the line from the course side. None of (a), (b), or (c) in the definition of Finish applies, as she only tacked which is not a penalty under 44.2, so (for the RC) she fullfilled the definition and finished, and could (should) be protested by RC In scenario 2, if boat A tacks and gybes, then doesn't cross the line, ok, she didn't finish (as her hull shall be completely on the course side before she finishes 44.2 last sentence). But I still think the RC committee should score her at her finishing order and protest (unless boat A is far ahead or far behind, RC has more to do than only deal with one boat). Finishing order is the main goal of RC (with all about fair sailing) Loïc
In each scenario, current and light winds made it difficult for Boat A to return to the course side. (See diagrams.)
I realise that my original description was not totally clear. Apologies if this changes what anyone had in mind, but it's best we all have the same picture.
As I see it, Scenario 1 should be easy. She finished. Score her and protest.
Scenario 2 is not so different. She sailed the course, including 'finished'. Score her and protest.
I don't think the RC can score her NSC in this case. The pathway to NSC runs through a required determination that Boat A's tack and gybe were actually a penalty - e.g. that she broke r31, and met the requirements of 44.2 - and then failed to 'finish' meaning that she didn't sail the course. No. The RC is not in the business of determining rule breaches or exonerations.
This is different to NSC based on a mark being passed on the wrong side (a determination the RC may make).
If the boat actually did cross the finish the 2nd time, isn't the RC doing exactly that?
They'd see the mark-hit, see the turns, see the 2nd crossing from the course-side and determine that the boat took a penalty (thus did not finish the first time) and finished the 2nd time ... recording her 2nd crossing as her finish?
A boat taking a turns penalty doesn't have to have broken a rule. They may take the penalty when they may have.
Same with what Angelo said: the language of 44.1 uses “may have broken” — so what RC needs is not confidence that the boat hit the mark (if that’s the issue, then protest the boat), but confidence that the boat is taking a penalty under 44.2 — and I don’t think we need to overthink what a consecutive spin looks like. It’s not a normal maneuver :-)
So just to rehash my take: the RC may score a boat NSC without a protest under 5.1, and the path to NSC is the last sentence of 44.2, the definition of Finish (a), and the definition of Sail the Course (c).
The re-crossed scenario 2 effectively already satisfies a very high evidentiary standard — the boat’s clear penalty turn and recrossing leave little room for doubt that she treated the first crossing as not counting.
The no-recross scenario 1 requires a similarly high level of confidence before the RC could rely on the boat’s conduct as “taking a penalty,” but the evidence is much weaker and more ambiguous and open, so the determination is much harder to justify.
So yes, you could say there is a 'determination' to be made in both scenarios. However, Scenario 2 is so highly supported by undisputable actions - first crossing + tack and gybe per 44.2 + second crossing, that it is closer to being an objective observation, rather than a decision.
Most of the critical scoring determinations RC is required or empowered to make are generally ones supported by absolute fact. OCS,, start penalties, retired or scoring penalty are all pretty black and white decisions to make. Even a regular NSC - did the boat pass the marks on the correct side or not is quite clear cut.
(Case 148 Q1-Last Paragraph represents one of the few instances I can find where the RC must judge a boat's intent critically to determine her score. Here, the RC must decide whether the boat's pause was consistent with sailing the course or not. I am a little irked by that, since I think the general principal of keeping RC decisions as objective as possible is safer for RRS.)
Ben re: "Can someone explain again the reasoning here."
I think the reasoning would go like this....
REASONING
RRS 44.2 has 2 sentences.
First states how a boat "takes a penalty" (same words as def: finish(a))
Second states what a boat must do to finish, if that penalty is taken at or near the finish.
They are separate and the 2nd doesn't affect first at all, but the 1st is a condition/component of the 2nd.
RRS 44.1 states, "A boat may take a Two-Turns Penalty when she may have broken one or more rules of Part 2"
No rule needs to be actually broken
Therefore, the RC need-not "determine" if a rule was actually broken or its exoneration status.
That said, the observation and record by the RC of a potential rules-breach can help in its "determination" in Application #2 below.
Def: Finish (a) states, within a however-exclusion, that a boat that takes a 44.2 penalty after crossing the line, has not finished.
Def: Sail the Course (c) includes "she finishes"
A boat that has not finished, has not sailed the course.
Appx A5.1(a) states that when the RC "determines that .. a boat did not sail the course ... it shall score her accordingly without a hearing"
The only guidance I think we have for "determines" in the rules is:
RRS 90.3(c) which states that determination should be made based upon the RC's "own observations and records".
Case 148 which is adjacent to this questions raised in this thread.
So, pulling the trigger on this cascade ...
APPLICATION
The RC observes and records a boat doing one tack and gybe in quick-succession after crossing the finish from the course-side.
The RC determines from that RC-observation/record that the boat took a 44.2 penalty.
Based on def:finish, the boat has not finished.
Based on def: sail the course, the boat has not sailed the course.
Based upon A5.1, the RC shall score her NSC.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, as long as the RC determines that the spin was a 44.2 penalty, it does not act improperly by scoring NSC; quite the opposite.
Once the RC determines that a 44.2 penalty was taken, it would be an omission NOT to score NSC due to A5.1's "shall"
All that said, it is imperative that the RC keep the record of the boat's crossing and thus be able to change the score from NSC to her finish-place (based on her only crossing) if:
based upon 90.3(c) the RC decides it made an error in her first determination in Application #2 above, or
based upon a decision of the PC as a result an R4R hearing.
Ben, as is often the case on these forums, this has been taken to a very complicated place. But I disagree with the logic way back at the point of RC being ‘sure a boat touched a mark’ and all the rationale that follows that. RC does not make the decision that actions of a boat are penalty turns. Our job is to record all crossings of the line - and apply the last one as the competitor’s finishing place. If the competitor’s view is different for whatever reason they can request redress. If we believe the boat touched a mark our only course of action is to protest. Taking this to NSC because of the movements of a boat after finishing that the RC interprets as penalty turns is a step too far. On a simple point of logical human behaviour, why would a boat take penalty turns then sail away without refinishing? Makes no sense. So what Ang thinks are penalty turns could be anything, and not within the decision-making purview of the RC.
Nick .. to be clear .. I don't think anything is a penalty turn as I am not on the RC. What I did is simply state what the RRS contains.
In that vein, what specific line above do you believe is incorrect?
PS: see Answer 1 Case 148
"The second sentence of the definition contains three conditions, (a), (b) and (c). If one of those three conditions applies, X’s first crossing of the finish line does not qualify as her finish.
X did not take a penalty at or near the finishing line and, therefore, she did not satisfy condition (a)."
Application, point 2 and Conclusion, point 1. A RC cannot determine if a boat’s manoeuvres are penalty turns. A RC may hold the view that the manoeuvres are penalty turns but as I said above, if the boat makes no attempt to refinish then the RC is clearly mistaken. Otherwise why take a penalty then not refinish. This is where forum discussions leave the world of reality. It’s possible to draw all kinds of hypothetical conclusions, but they are all undone by asking the question ‘why would a boat do that?’ In summary, as advice to RC finishing crew, record all finishes and use the last one as the boat’s finishing place and if the RC is strongly enough of the view that the boat touched a mark, lodge a protest. NSC is a power to be used sparingly. I can hear it now in the redress hearing. ‘He did some turns, I assumed he’d hit a mark, so I scored him NSC.’ Don’t think so.
Nick .. would it be correct to state your position then that the RC is precluded from "determining" a boat did not sail the course except for def: STC (a) and (b)? And .. by extension, if she does so she has committed an improper action?
I agree with your your advice to RC's.
That said, A3 states ..
"The time of a boat’s starting signal shall be her starting time, and the order in which boats finish a race shall determine their finishing places."
"Finish" is italicized .. so doesn't it incorporate all def: finish components including its exclusions?
My position is that RC should not make assumptions about what is in a competitor’s mind. Logic says no one would take a penalty and not refinish. The RC does not have the authority to penalise a boat for hitting a mark. It’s an overreach to apply NSC if the RC assumes a boat has touched a mark and therefore decides the boat has broken a rule and therefore the manoeuvre is a penalty turn and therefore the boat has not finished and therefore is NSC. Record finishes and protest if you feel you want to be involved. There’s already enough of what we Australians call bush lawyers in our sport. Let’s not encourage any more.
Nick, as you can see, I have carefully crafted the questions to create the tension between any tack and gybe which may be any manoeuvring unrelated to a R31 breach and what seems to the RO obviously a penalty turn after a mark touch.
@Loic, does your A5.1 aurgument fit Q2? Ang has proposed a clear case that conflicts with your view and says A5.1(a) does apply here. (That Q2 did not sail the course, by virtue of not finishing after taking a penalty.)
Finally, we have stumbled onto another topic.. DNF or NSC for Q2.
Has anyone really put much thought to what the difference between DNF and NSC is? Well, it's there in Appendix A10, isn't it?
DNF Did not finish NSC Did not sail the course (other than DNF)
So NSC is Did not Sail the Course when did Finish. Or simply put for A5.1(a)...:
DSC(due to DID NOT FIN) = DNF But; DSC + FIN = NSC
Ang and Giff's Application logic #3 above relies on the conclusion that Boat A 'did not finish'. Ok. Fine. But the 'did not finish' (DNF) then makes NSC un-usable in this case., per A10. (DSC(DID NOT FIN)) That's why I don't agree that NSC is the 'according' score.
So we are back to square 1.
Either score her FINished when she crossed prior to the turns, or score her DNF which relies on the judgement of Boat A's purpose of doing turns which is based in turn on the judgement that there was a rule breach.
I would say FINished is safer than DNF. Then [wait for a] protest for the mark touch.
This preserves the underlying principal that critical determinations of most rule breaches, penalties and exonerations are sorted by the PC after a protest. Rule 31 being such a rule.
This is different to when a boat crosses the line, crew fist bumps and high-fives each other and the beers opened, but RO noted she missed Mark 2 and rounded Mark 3 on the wrong side. That's DSC + FIN = NSC for sure!
When the race committee is finishing they pay little attention to what a boat does after they cross the finish. If they cross the finish line from the course.side we record their finishes. If they cross a second or third time we record those finishes as well.
Ang, it seems you now want the race committee to watch each boat that finishes and if they do a tack and a gybe and don’t refinish score them NSC. Sounds like a long night listening to requests for redress!
I’ll simply note that scenario B happened to me last year. We were taking finishes. We saw a boat pretty clearly hit the finish pin. We saw them do a spin immediately after finishing and getting clear. We made sure they finished again, which they did, but if they had forgotten the RRS requirements and not refinished, we would have scored them NSC — again not for rule 31 but for not complying with the requirement to finish after taking a 44.2 penalty.
I don’t think we were being an overly aggressive RC or going hunting nor trying to track every boat after they finish. But I do think it would be applying the rules as written.
Nor do I really buy that a fast, consecutive tack and gybe — a true spin — is a maneuver that one might just happen to do after finishing, especially in the context of above. Now if you saw a boat finish, do a gybe, and then come up and pass head to wind as they start to take down their sail, a reasonable person can tell that isn’t a penalty turn.
Mark .. I want nothing of the sort. I'm just offering a reading of what's in the rules.
I neither want or want to encourage any RC to do anything here. I have been consistent in saying that an RC should record all crossings and if an RC believes a boat hit a mark did a turn and didn't refinish, then the RC should protest them.
That said, the RRS says what it says (with the added resolution that because sail the course includes start and finish .. DNF and DNS are refinements on NSC).
(In Ang's defence, I think he was helping me understand that argument by putting it in an orderly order, rather than really strongly supporting it himself.)
My strong feeling from the start is as put by Nick and Mark. That the RO should not be tasked with judging intent. It might work 90% of the time.
This is why I launched this topic and structured the questions as I did.
The title of this thread is Finish (a), is because I'm trying to find a case where an RO can apply Finish(a) to discount a boat's crossing based on subsequent actions. As I see it, to do this needs a conclusion by the RO that the boat's manoeuvring was 'taking a penalty'.
I don't find it.
Without a re-cross or protest, I don't see any time an RO can discount the original cross.
This is probably a new concept to some ROs. That's the point.
(The other topic of when to use DNF vs NSC is a side-bonus to me. I'm not an RO, and this is not something I have thought much about before.)
Well, I never thought a simple question would generate such a huge amount of comments. I am a simple guy, and finding an easy answer is always my goal. The RO sets the course, gives a fair start, follows the evolution of wind, current, conditions, and fills the arrival order. That's more than enough to be done properly. In any case of troubles about RRS, RO should immediately leave it to the PC. If a hearing in the protest room takes 10 to 20/30 minutes, it's because hearing the parties, establishing the facts, and making a decision takes a long time. That time, on a moving boat, with another race behind, the RO doesn't have it. And whatever the decision of the RO in that case (NSC, DNF, or let it go as it is), if he doesn't feel confortable with his décision, he can protest it and leave it to the jury (thanks a lot, officer !)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I’m a simple soul and that is a virtue when finishing a zippered fleet of 150 ILCAs in three minutes. There is a term from Ancient Greek that I find applies to some contributors to these fora. I suggest that anyone feeling uncomfortable with the level of complexity that frequently creeps into what ought to be simple, straightforward answers Google the word ‘sophistry’. It will explain much of what often happens. Good night.
The WS Race Management Manual provides some guidance. O.4 Finishing procedure It is not expected of the race committee to follow the actions of every boat, especially in a race with a big number of boats. The finish vessel crew should record every boat that crosses the line from the course side. Possible double recordings of boats can be solved later.
The WS Race Management Policies Fleet Racing January 2024 provides some guidance in this area. 16. Race Committee Protests 16.1 Since the primary responsibility for protesting breaches of the rules rests with competitors, the race committee will not normally protest a boat. 16.2 The race committee may protest a boat in the following circumstances: (a) A breach of a sailing instruction that may not be protested by another boat; (b) An apparent breach of good sportsmanship (RRS 2); (c) Failing to take a penalty after knowingly touching a mark, but not protesting another boat.
None of situations (a), (b) or (c) are fullfilled, so :
Only the protest committee may take other scoring actions that worsen a boat's score.
The only possible action of the race committee is to protest boat A.
Loïc
Finish is part of Sail the Course. A boat that has not finished has not sailed the course. It's A5.1(a).
You bypassed all the discussion I'd hoped for and got straight to it with the black and white of A5.1.
(I was hoping for a philosophical discussion on the logic of it all to arrive at the same conclusion...!)
Anyway, the reason for presenting this question is that I am not sure Finish(a) is that well understood by ROs and some competitors. At least I have seen similar scenarios which have resulted in DNF scores being applied by ROs in similar cases.. Some of these are never get caught because even competitors can also be a little unsure to question it when it happens.
The bottom line here..
...There should not be a case when a RO can apply Finish(a) themselves.
It just isn't permitted by A5.1.
Apologies.
As I said, I think some ROs belive that Finish (a) is there for their use, requiring them to adjudge the boat's intent and score a boat DNF.
This is a breakdown in the RO training... Is be interested to see how this rule is trained to budding ROs.
Thanks.
In scenario 1, the boat has finished, there is no protest against her, so she should be scored in her finishing position.
In your alternate facts, the boat takes a penalty under 44.2. Since her hull does not return completely to the course side of the line before she finishes, she has not finished per 44.2 and Finish definition (a). Thus she has not sailed the course (Sail the Course definition part (c)) and the RC can score her NSC under A5.1(a)
https://www.racingrulesofsailing.org/posts/5473-finish-definition-exception-a#comment_21564
Am I even correct that the RC/finish boat is allowed to give the competitor the lower of the two scores there? Does the competitor NEED to report that re-finishing in order to receive it? How much of that is on the RC / finish boat?
A boat is no longer racing after she clears the line and marks. Hence the finish line no longer exists for her.
Case 148
if, at all times between her first and second crossing, her actions are consistent with continuing ‘to sail the course’.
Finish is part of Sailg the Course. A boat that has not finished has not sailed the course. It's A5.1(a).
Ang,
I'm just making the point that, IF the RC determines (from their own information and records) a boat did not finish, she has the ability to score the boat NSC without a hearing under A5.1(a) as the boat did not sail the course.
I'm not suggesting that they should do that at all ... but you made the statement that A5.1 precluded the RC. The text of A5.1(a) and def: sail the course would suggest otherwise. - Ang
Not quite sure.
In the described scenario 1, boat A crosses the line from the course side. None of (a), (b), or (c) in the definition of Finish applies, as she only tacked which is not a penalty under 44.2, so (for the RC) she fullfilled the definition and finished, and could (should) be protested by RC
In scenario 2, if boat A tacks and gybes, then doesn't cross the line, ok, she didn't finish (as her hull shall be completely on the course side before she finishes 44.2 last sentence). But I still think the RC committee should score her at her finishing order and protest (unless boat A is far ahead or far behind, RC has more to do than only deal with one boat). Finishing order is the main goal of RC (with all about fair sailing)
Loïc
In each scenario, current and light winds made it difficult for Boat A to return to the course side. (See diagrams.)
I realise that my original description was not totally clear. Apologies if this changes what anyone had in mind, but it's best we all have the same picture.
Scenario 2 is not so different. She sailed the course, including 'finished'. Score her and protest.
I don't think the RC can score her NSC in this case. The pathway to NSC runs through a required determination that Boat A's tack and gybe were actually a penalty - e.g. that she broke r31, and met the requirements of 44.2 - and then failed to 'finish' meaning that she didn't sail the course. No. The RC is not in the business of determining rule breaches or exonerations.
This is different to NSC based on a mark being passed on the wrong side (a determination the RC may make).
If the boat actually did cross the finish the 2nd time, isn't the RC doing exactly that?
They'd see the mark-hit, see the turns, see the 2nd crossing from the course-side and determine that the boat took a penalty (thus did not finish the first time) and finished the 2nd time ... recording her 2nd crossing as her finish?
A boat taking a turns penalty doesn't have to have broken a rule. They may take the penalty when they may have.
So just to rehash my take: the RC may score a boat NSC without a protest under 5.1, and the path to NSC is the last sentence of 44.2, the definition of Finish (a), and the definition of Sail the Course (c).
I think there is a difference.
The re-crossed scenario 2 effectively already satisfies a very high evidentiary standard — the boat’s clear penalty turn and recrossing leave little room for doubt that she treated the first crossing as not counting.
The no-recross scenario 1 requires a similarly high level of confidence before the RC could rely on the boat’s conduct as “taking a penalty,” but the evidence is much weaker and more ambiguous and open, so the determination is much harder to justify.
So yes, you could say there is a 'determination' to be made in both scenarios. However, Scenario 2 is so highly supported by undisputable actions - first crossing + tack and gybe per 44.2 + second crossing, that it is closer to being an objective observation, rather than a decision.
Most of the critical scoring determinations RC is required or empowered to make are generally ones supported by absolute fact. OCS,, start penalties, retired or scoring penalty are all pretty black and white decisions to make. Even a regular NSC - did the boat pass the marks on the correct side or not is quite clear cut.
(Case 148 Q1-Last Paragraph represents one of the few instances I can find where the RC must judge a boat's intent critically to determine her score. Here, the RC must decide whether the boat's pause was consistent with sailing the course or not. I am a little irked by that, since I think the general principal of keeping RC decisions as objective as possible is safer for RRS.)
It might say ...
But yes, from a practical point of view, its the action of crossing the 2nd time which confidently negates the first crossing.
Can someone explain again the reasoning here... why it's different to Q1, why the last sentence of 44.2 matters?
I think the reasoning would go like this....
REASONING
So, pulling the trigger on this cascade ...
APPLICATION
CONCLUSION
All that said, it is imperative that the RC keep the record of the boat's crossing and thus be able to change the score from NSC to her finish-place (based on her only crossing) if:
I'm eager to know if I'm the only one who disagrees with this....
The reason I laid it out and numbered like that is so folk can be more specific in the discussion. What specific line do you believe is incorrect?
PS: I added Case 148 to RRS guidance on "determines" .. but that Case involved a protest .. so the discussion is about the PC.
In that vein, what specific line above do you believe is incorrect?
PS: see Answer 1 Case 148
I agree with your your advice to RC's.
That said, A3 states ..
"Finish" is italicized .. so doesn't it incorporate all def: finish components including its exclusions?
@Loic, does your A5.1 aurgument fit Q2? Ang has proposed a clear case that conflicts with your view and says A5.1(a) does apply here. (That Q2 did not sail the course, by virtue of not finishing after taking a penalty.)
Finally, we have stumbled onto another topic.. DNF or NSC for Q2.
DNF Did not finish
NSC Did not sail the course (other than DNF)
So NSC is Did not Sail the Course when did Finish. Or simply put for A5.1(a)...:
DSC(due to DID NOT FIN) = DNF
But;
DSC + FIN = NSC
Ang and Giff's Application logic #3 above relies on the conclusion that Boat A 'did not finish'. Ok. Fine. But the 'did not finish' (DNF) then makes NSC un-usable in this case., per A10. (DSC(DID NOT FIN)) That's why I don't agree that NSC is the 'according' score.
So we are back to square 1.
Either score her FINished when she crossed prior to the turns, or score her DNF which relies on the judgement of Boat A's purpose of doing turns which is based in turn on the judgement that there was a rule breach.
I would say FINished is safer than DNF. Then [wait for a] protest for the mark touch.
This preserves the underlying principal that critical determinations of most rule breaches, penalties and exonerations are sorted by the PC after a protest. Rule 31 being such a rule.
This is different to when a boat crosses the line, crew fist bumps and high-fives each other and the beers opened, but RO noted she missed Mark 2 and rounded Mark 3 on the wrong side. That's DSC + FIN = NSC for sure!
Ang, it seems you now want the race committee to watch each boat that finishes and if they do a tack and a gybe and don’t refinish score them NSC. Sounds like a long night listening to requests for redress!
Nick’s comments were on point.
I don’t think we were being an overly aggressive RC or going hunting nor trying to track every boat after they finish. But I do think it would be applying the rules as written.
Nor do I really buy that a fast, consecutive tack and gybe — a true spin — is a maneuver that one might just happen to do after finishing, especially in the context of above. Now if you saw a boat finish, do a gybe, and then come up and pass head to wind as they start to take down their sail, a reasonable person can tell that isn’t a penalty turn.
I neither want or want to encourage any RC to do anything here. I have been consistent in saying that an RC should record all crossings and if an RC believes a boat hit a mark did a turn and didn't refinish, then the RC should protest them.
That said, the RRS says what it says (with the added resolution that because sail the course includes start and finish .. DNF and DNS are refinements on NSC).
My strong feeling from the start is as put by Nick and Mark. That the RO should not be tasked with judging intent. It might work 90% of the time.
This is why I launched this topic and structured the questions as I did.
The title of this thread is Finish (a), is because I'm trying to find a case where an RO can apply Finish(a) to discount a boat's crossing based on subsequent actions. As I see it, to do this needs a conclusion by the RO that the boat's manoeuvring was 'taking a penalty'.
I don't find it.
Without a re-cross or protest, I don't see any time an RO can discount the original cross.
This is probably a new concept to some ROs. That's the point.
(The other topic of when to use DNF vs NSC is a side-bonus to me. I'm not an RO, and this is not something I have thought much about before.)
Thanks for everyone's input.
I am a simple guy, and finding an easy answer is always my goal.
The RO sets the course, gives a fair start, follows the evolution of wind, current, conditions, and fills the arrival order. That's more than enough to be done properly.
In any case of troubles about RRS, RO should immediately leave it to the PC.
If a hearing in the protest room takes 10 to 20/30 minutes, it's because hearing the parties, establishing the facts, and making a decision takes a long time. That time, on a moving boat, with another race behind, the RO doesn't have it.
And whatever the decision of the RO in that case (NSC, DNF, or let it go as it is), if he doesn't feel confortable with his décision, he can protest it and leave it to the jury (thanks a lot, officer !)
The WS Race Management Manual provides some guidance.
O.4 Finishing procedure
It is not expected of the race committee to follow the actions of every boat, especially in a race with a big number of boats. The finish vessel crew should record every boat that crosses the line from the course side. Possible double recordings of boats can be solved later.
The WS Race Management Policies Fleet Racing January 2024 provides some guidance in this area.
16. Race Committee Protests
16.1 Since the primary responsibility for protesting breaches of the rules rests with competitors, the race committee will not normally protest a boat.
16.2 The race committee may protest a boat in the following circumstances:
(a) A breach of a sailing instruction that may not be protested by another boat;
(b) An apparent breach of good sportsmanship (RRS 2);
(c) Failing to take a penalty after knowingly touching a mark, but not protesting another boat.