The Racing Rules of Sailing
No Flag No Foul
In another post I said I would quite like to see the construct of RRS 44 changed so that time for a boat to take an on-water penalty ran from the hail of 'protest'."
Tentatively, the change would be to replace 'the incident' in RRS 44.2 and 44.3 with 'the hail of "protest" and, if required, the display of a red flag'
What I had in mind (with some trepidation) was moving towards a 'No Flag No Foul' approach.
If there is no hail of 'protest' and if required display of red flag at the first reasonable opportunity, I am proposing that the there should be no obligation on a boat to take a RRS 44 penalty.
If there is no If there is no hail of 'protest' and if required display of red flag at the first reasonable opportunity there can be no valid protest and no hearing.
I think it is fair and just to say that a boat should not be required to voluntarily take a penalty when there is no power to give an involuntary penalty.
Maybe an interpretation of 'promptly take an appropriate penalty' would be needed as follows:
A boat may promptly take an appropriate penalty by:
- taking a penalty in accordance with RRS 44;
- taking a post-race penalty in accordance with RRS T1; or
- accepting, subject to any request for re-opening or Appeal, the decision of a protest committee penalising her.
Created: Fri 00:12
Comments
Format:
You must be signed in to add a comment.
I predict 'Mad Max Thunderdome' in very short order.
How does that fit with Basic Principles ?
See the suggested interpretation of 'promptly take an appropriate penalty'.
I remember a case during the Fastnet some years ago. We had a RRS 14 hearing the protestor had very serious damages obliged to sail back to Cowes (incident taking place just after the start)
Questions to the protestee:
«jury - did you see the serious damages on the other boat after the contacte?
Boat - yes
Jury - what didn’t you retire
Boat - the other boat didn’t sink »
Game over 😇
If there is no hail of 'protest' and if required display of red flag at the first reasonable opportunity, I am proposing that the there should be no obligation on a boat to take a RRS 44 penalty. "
My old sailing sailing mentor - Paul Elvstrøm would be doing 360's in his grave if he heard your proposal............
I think this would be a very big step in the wrong direction
Exactly how do you think the suggestion is not fair?
It's exactly what we do in Match Racing. Are you suggesting that Match Racing isn't fair?
If a boat thinks she may have broken a rule, she may take a RRS 44 penalty (RRS 44.1). RRS 44 does not require a boat to take an on-water penalty.
OK, maybe the thread title was a little bit glib and possibly misleading. I'm not suggesting that somehow if there is no hail and flag then no rule has actually been broken. What is suggested is that a boat is not required to take a RRS 44 penalty.
Part of the justification for that suggestion is that in most cases, without a hail and flag, there can be no valid protest and a protest committee could not penalise the boat.
In the case of injury or serious damaged:
So, there was serious damage, there was a valid protest and the boat was penalises.
That's exactly how we all know the rules work.
Whist taking rules classes I lay a lot of stress on this self -enforcing aspect for fair play. Most parents of young sailors often agree on the impact this particular aspect can have on a young individual's personality development.
The suggestion of "no flag no penalty" would lead to diminishing this spirit of self-policing by the sailors and thus affect the "fair play and the sportsman spirit".
To me it is definitely a thought leading in the wrong direction
With the greatest respect for your sportsmanlike attitude, I think that sailboat racing is game with rules designed to enable serious athletic competition between participants.
I understand and share your pride in the sportsmanlike culture that exists and we try to foster, but I think that if you, or others, wish to use sailing racing as a vehicle to develop the character of young people, you need to take the game as you find it, not massage the game around into an ethical exercise.
Perhaps viable for social racing like twilight racing and club social regattas etc - we have one such regatta coming up here soon and will see if the OA is interested in 'trialing' this approach (NOR/SI language) and just gauge how it goes. Above that local level of racing, I would think that the current RRS stands, for the reasons given.
If one was talking about Match Racing with only 2 boats and no umpire boats .. yea maybe. But we are talking about Fleet racing.
When one boat is not exonerated for a rule breach, that boat does not only benefit relative to a single boat involved ... but also the entire fleet.
Take for instance a boat barging at the RC at the start. The closest ROW boat that changes course and let's her in and says "no problem .. I only altered course a little .. you owe me one next time" .. has now given that barger a controlling position on all the boats in the fleet .. and an advantage by not forcing that boat to duck or spin-out at the RC boat. That's a huge advantage that boat has gained against the fleet.
Or perhaps a port tracker inside the zone cutting too close in front of a line of boats on the starboard layline. The first in that line lets them go without a protest .. but now that boat is ahead of the line instead of them having to take the stern of those boats.
This creates an uneven playing field as some boats will protest and others will not.
Over time .. pairs of boats create their own tally's of who owes each other a "protest-pass" and they get to bank future advantages against other boats in the fleet. Or worse .. boats agree to never protest each other .. given them advantages against the fleet.
Bottom line (for me at least) ... is that when a boat breaks a unexonerated rule in a fleet race, they gain an advantage against all the boats in the fleet, which is incalculable by a single boat in the moment of the incident.
This is already a problem in our sport .. this would make it worse IMHO.
And if there wasn't (and none of the exceptions in RRS 6.2(b) apply) ... The protest committee closes the hearing (RRS 63.4(a)(1)).
So, in that case, why should anybody be concerned whether the protestee broke a rule or not?
I think we are saying the same thing - If there is no call for protest on the water there is no protest.
I'm saying: is it not implied already? However, what you propose does make it more clear and i like it.
I wouldn't go along with that. I think that those sorts of events are the sort where more emphasis on sportsmanship is appropriate.
I think the suggestion might be suitable for more serious events where the sailors know what they are doing.
"You didn't see the burglar and shout 'stop thief'' within 30 seconds? Case dismissed."
My own feeling is that it should go the other way, and if the flag or hail is too slow then the protest should be heard, but the penalty reduced from DSQ if the PC finds the protested boat did not have the opportunity to take an alternative penalty.
Now I think of it I think I'd support a lesser penalty than DSQ for any part 2 incident that didn't involve contact.
I wouldn't be too premature.
It's a suggestion. I'm not saying that it's a good suggestion.
Timothy has already identified one practical difficulty with hails not heard. There may well be other problems. That's why I started the thead: to explore any difficulties.
I'd let this discussion go on a bit further before talking to an OA.
P, however, still breaks 10 and the Basic Priciples; which require her to take a penalty for which she is not exonerated for. Her failure to do so potentially puts her afoul for Rule 2.
That said, I don’t think a change to the Basic Principles is the right approach. Instead, a change to how exoneration works might be a better approach. Say exoneration is adjusted to allow a boat that broke a rule because the other boat allowed it (e.g. S let P cross, therefore P is exonerated, something along those lines), P would no longer break the Basic Principles.
See comment above. This has no place in fleet racing IMO. We are making each boat a roaming PC.
Let's flip or maybe perfect the construct .. what's good for the goose and all ...
If a boat has the ability to allow a boat to break a rule without penalty .. shouldn't that same boat's determination be able to apply a penalty? If they are so wise about the "fairness" of the situation ... why shouldn't that boat be able to simply impose a penalty in another boat?
> for tactical reasons. Technically, P has broken 10
Not sure... If Starboard waves across port and does not duck Port has not broken a rule. If Starboard waves Port across then as soon as they start to duck have they not assumed a responsibility under 16.1 to give Port room to keep clear? So in that situation isn't there at most a very narrow window in which Port breaks 10? Is there an argument that at all times Port was clear, even if it was by the co-operation of Starboard?
As the rules stand, a given boat can always decide whether to hail 'protest' and whether or not to actually protest another boat.
RRS 60.1 says A boat ... may protest a boat.
No rule requires a boat to protest. Ever.
The suggestion I have made does not change that in any way.
On Wed night in very light conditions .. a boat clearly broke rule 10 against me. "Sorry .. I thought I could make it" he said.
"Are you going to take a penalty?" I asked (Wed races are scoring penalties only). He said he would (with a reluctant "sure"). There was no doubt about the rule breach and no doubt that there was no exoneration.
This is a new boat to the fleet ... and honestly I didn't protest him as a test of his character (sizing him up as a man of his word and all that). Unfortunately he failed the test and did not file his penalty acceptance.
Duly noted.
If the idea is that there’s no foul unless someone protests, that doesn’t solve this issue.
It seems to me that the Starboard boat is altering course early, choosing to pass behind port for strategic reasons, and adding a verbal comment to make her intentions clear.* Indeed I often waive people across who are already clearing me so that they can sail fast, and avoid choking and fouling and screwing me up.
The exception is people forgiving their buddy after a foul (usually when a cross misses by 1-2 feet.)
What, exactly, do you think the 'problem' is?
You seem to be saying that you think the existing reqirements for prompt hail and flag are making the problem, whatever it is worse.
Those requirements have been around since about 1983. Are they suddenly causing problems?
As I said to Tribhuwan sailing racing is a game. The rules attempt to ensure fairness and justice, but sometimes they don't work perfectly. Sometimes they preference justice over fairness, sometimes the other way round.
That's a really interesting idea that I think deserves some discussion.
In my experience this is a bad idea.
Our club tried discretionary penalties for Part 2 incidents for our Winter Sundays for a while.
My personal experience was we were in a port/starboard cross with us on starboard, and when we hailed, the skipper of the other boat responded: 'Its only a Sunday race' and stood on so we had to avoid him. Unsurprisingly we protested. The protest committee penalised the other boat 2 places.
We only protested because the other skipper was rude and knowingly broke a rule, but we didn't want to make a RRS 2 fuss.
So, what soft penalties will lead to is every simple Part 2 protest will also become a RRS 2 protest, in order to get the higher penalty. This will lead to acrimony and disharmony.
If you were thinking of going the other way and imposing a more severe penalty for contact, or contact with damage, I'd just say that DNE is a serious penalty currently reserved for a breach of sportsmanship and fair sailing: I don't think it would be appropriate for mere contact.
That said, I wonder about trying it with my small club of ILCA sailors for our informal racing. It's a casual group. They like to race, but most don't get out in 'the real world', and their knowledge of the rules is thin. But they're not cavalier about breaking them. Still... I'm not sure I've ever heard someone hail 'protest'.
I might try for one day running it this way. It will force people to think about the rules and whether they've seen a breach.... and hail 'protest.' It could be interesting. Maybe it will result in a hearing (I've been itching to have one)!
No shout, not out!
It works in cricket. And they say cricket is a true gentleman's sport. ( Sorry to Americans who haven't got a clue what I'm talking about.)
My point is that sportsmanship and ethos molds around the rules of the game. The sport won't fall into anarchy overnight. In fact, I can't it as much different. The basic principals don't seem affected.
The effect of the proposal would be to simply cause the flag to come out more and the shouts to be louder, and eliminate some of the grey cases.
Is this what John is trying to fix or do? Or am I missing something? John?
I need to think more about this before I dismiss this. I don't really understand what the aim is. At the same time, I don't really understand what all the fuss against is.
In Cricket only 1 team is playing another. As far as I know .. there isn't anything like a fleet-cricket match where multiple teams are playing against each other at the same time.
That's where this breaks down in my mind and that's where my "fuss" is about (see my detailed explaination above). One on One forms of competition (or one team on one team) .. no protest no foul can work.
No, but at most levels, at least in the UK, if he is clearly and obviously out there is an expectation that he ought to. Having said that, Its exceeding rare for cricketers to delay the hail at all...
My own guess is that it would make no difference to the frequency of protests or flags at all, and the only effect would be a perception that it doesn't matter what rules are broken so long as no-one complains. I don't think that's a healthy perception.
1. The 'sting in the tail' of the suggestion is that (for a non injury/damage Part 2 incident) if there is no hail of 'protest' at the first reasonable opportunity, the time for a boat to take a RRS 44 penalty never arises and:
2. With suitable notification and publicity to competitors, it would emphasise the need for clear and prompt hails of 'protest', and, if applicable display of red flags. It would make clear to competitors their responsibility to enforce the rules (RRS Basic Principles Sportsmanship and the Rules first sentence), which is complementary to the obligation of boats to take a penalty (RRS Basic Principles Sportsmanship and the Rules second sentence), Hopefully competitors would get the idea that if they don't protest properly, they should not complain about other boats breaking the rules.
3. The suggestion would just about rule out third party protests. A boat that thinks she sees a Part 2 breach between two other boats will probably not be within hailing distance. I acknowledge Angelo's very cogent points about the philosophical undesirability of doing this.
Take well your salient points. Was just considering for a specific [trial] application at club level here - with suitable NOR-SI language (emphasising Rule 2 and not for where collisions or damage or injury are present etc - not that this event has 'teams or groups with collusion potential nor have I seen that sort of behaviour here as yet at the national level). With precious few volunteers available here and strict budget limitations - such Clubs here always looking for ways and means of 'fluidizing' events (interested to see how RYA are handling such things, with their robotic / virtual course program, launched in 2024).
Interestingly, we have seen over the past couple of seasons in the national program, competitors appear to be doing this approach themselves - for lessor infringements at given events, and at the following or subsequent event asking the jury to do an informal clinic just to clarify the matter between them (of a past lessor incident they jointly sat quiet on at the time)...we have been actively trying to educate and turn that practise around at nationals.
2. Reduce grey area cases where the subjectivity of sportsmanship is the 'controlling' factor.
----
As far as I know .. there isn't anything like a fleet-cricket match where multiple teams are playing against each other at the same time.
I have no problem with the idea in 1:1 competition.
I'm happy to accept your view then.
Its clear that the overwhelming opinion opposes John's proposal for whatever reason.
I think the tribe has spoken.
When thinking of sportsmanship I always think of golf. If someone kicks a ball out of the rough back on to the fairway, or whatever, then they are clearly breaking a rule and simply cheating. And no one likes a cheat!
Sure it's a bit different in that competitor vs. competitor situations are rare in golf whilst common in sailing. Also the RRS are a bit more complicated and nuanced particularly when it comes to overlaps, the zone, proper course, and much more, so the breaking of a rule is not always as clear-cut in the sailing world.
I think it is critical that fair sailing, sportsmanship and safety be a constant focus when anyone joins the sport either as a child or an adult. I think one of the biggest issues is with adults who buy a boat and go racing in their new weapon with virtually no knowledge of or care for the rules. From a safety perspective, Organising Authorities should ensure there is sufficient (current) experience on board to ensure the safety of the fleet as a whole.
There is also another cohort that is a concern. That is the children of "Opti-mums(dads)" where they encourage their child(ren) to win at all costs ... sometimes encouraging them to break the rules when they can get away with it and othertimes coaching them to weaponise the rules against other competitors :-(
JimC said
Niko said
I wholeheartedly agree with Jim and Niko.
There's another, more 'philosophical' argument.
If S chooses to bear away and duck P, S does not need to take action to avoid P and P keeps clear.
I've often had the thought that "need" is a weak word to convey this specific difference.
We use "compelled" elsewhere in the RRS to convey the weight of external factors forcing action on a boat. Maybe ...
.. or maybe "required"
As a protestor you are required to hail protest and also required to display a red flag if applicable as read above, deviation from these requirements can/should render any subsequent protest as invalid unless subject to other parts of RRS 60.
'Compelled' is certainly stronger than 'need'.
I think its considerably stronger than 'reasonable apprehension'.
“Reasonable apprehension” is a legal standard assessing whether a person’s fear of harm or bias is justified based on objective circumstances.