Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing

Extending a Prod in a windward Port and Starboard situation

Anto Sweetapple
Nationality: Australia
whats your view on the following scenario.
 
1. two boats beating to windward - middle of the harbour
 
2. boat on port tack is going to pass ahead of boat on starboard tack.
 
3. boat on stb tack has a prod in retracted position. 
4. boat of stb tack extends prod 2.5-3m as they approach boat on port and hail 'Starboard', port tack boat tacks to stay clear of prod.

Other than being 'unsportsman' like - does this breach any rule?




Created: 20-Jul-07 03:31

Comments

Phil Clinton
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
  • Club Race Officer
0
It is my understanding that the prodder must be in its normal position while going to windward. And that would be retracted. So unless the boats are about to round the mark it should be in the retracted position.
Created: 20-Jul-07 04:01
John Ball
Nationality: Canada
3
I would expect that this is covered in the class rules of the boat in question. For example the J/111 class rules say the following

C.9.3 BOWSPRIT
(a) USE
(1) The bowsprit shall be fully retracted at all times except when the spinnaker
is being set, is set, or is being retrieved, and shall be retracted at the first
reasonable opportunity after the spinnaker is fully retrieved.
(2) Approaching a mark at which the spinnaker will be set, the bowsprit shall not be
extended until the bow reaches the mark. 
 
John
Created: 20-Jul-07 04:22
Andrew Lesslie
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Race Officer
0
I've only ever seen this covered in Class Rules or Sailing Instructions, not in RRS.

The wording typically requires the pole / sprit / prodder to be kept retracted until the spinnaker hoist begins and to be retracted promptly on the douse.
Created: 20-Jul-07 04:23
Nicholas Hutton
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
1
When you say, 'Other than being 'unsportsman' like' isn't that enough? I know I would much rather be disqualified for a port and starboard incident than Rule 2 or Rule 69. So I think unsportsmanlike is sufficient!
Created: 20-Jul-07 04:39
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
1
The following cases may be directly relevant

Case 77
 
Definitions, Keep ClearRule 12, On the Same Tack, Not OverlappedRule 14, Avoiding ContactRule 31, Touching a Mark
Contact with a mark by a boat's equipment constitutes touching it. A boat obligated to keep clear does not break a rule when touched by a right-of-way boat's equipment that moves unexpectedly out of normal position.

Case 91
 
Definitions, Clear Astern and Clear Ahead; OverlapDefinitions, Keep ClearRule 12, On the Same Tack, Not OverlappedRule 14, Avoiding Contact
A boat required to keep clear must keep clear of another boat's equipment out of its normal position when the equipment has been out of its normal position long enough for the equipment to have been seen and avoided.


The following cases provide assistance, by analogy, on the sportsmanship issue

Case 73
 
Rule 2, Fair SailingRule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
When, by deliberate action, L's crew reaches out and touches W, which action could have no other intention than to cause W to break rule 11, then L breaks rule 2.
 
Rule 2, Fair SailingRule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped
There is no rule that dictates how the helmsman or crew of a leeward boat must sit; contact with a windward boat does not break rule 2 unless the helmsman's or crew's position is deliberately misused.
Created: 20-Jul-07 05:43
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
0
Hmm. Rule 10 doesn't say anything about equipment in normal position. 

And, in a mixed fleet (PHRF for example), is a boat bound by her class rules? 
Created: 20-Jul-07 07:12
Ekaterina Minakova
Nationality: Russian Federation
Certifications:
  • Regional Race Officer
  • Regional Judge
  • Umpire In Training
0
I wouldn't call for violation of rrs 2 unless S has deliberately broken class rules (or perhaps SI rules and etc) or extends the prod to compel P to break rrs 10/14 (for example, by doing it close to P, so that she cannot continue keeping clear and avoiding her).
In such case rule 69 should also be considered (see examples 5, 7, 8, 10 in case 138).

If class rules or any other relevant documents don't require the prod to be retracted on the beat and S extends it so that P has room to keep clear, I wouldn't assume any rrs is broken in this case, since neither definition Keep Clear, nor rrs 10 says anything about equipment out of its normal position.
Created: 20-Jul-07 08:57
Andrew McIrvine
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0
I would think Rule 15 applies  
15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY
When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other
boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of
the other boat’s actions.

She has by the action of putting out her prod acquired right of way and altered the situation for the port tack boat who should be given room to keep clear
Created: 20-Jul-07 10:12
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
John B, your instinct to look to the Class Rule is a good one. The J/105’s OD rules also have limitations (likely one of the first classes to write such a CR). 

The issue here may be that this may not be a class event.  If this was a PHRF fleet for instance, those CR’s wouldn’t necessarily convey unless specifically detailed in the PHRF rules.  I just looked at PHRF of the Chesapeake and though their equipment rules anticipate a retracting BS, it does not speak to its position while racing. 
Created: 20-Jul-07 11:14
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Anto, if this scenario was based upon an actual experience, and you have boats with retractable bowsprits that are not restricted in the deployment of the sprit by class rules, racing in mixed fleets .... you might consider  writing to the race committee and suggest that they add an SI limiting BS deployment. 

You can model it off the J/111 language or J/105 language below:

J105 CR 7.2 

When not in the process of setting, flying or taking down the spinnaker, the bowsprit shall be retracted so that the tip of the sprit is aft of the forwardmost point on the bow. Approaching a windward mark without the spinnaker set, the bowsprit shall not be extended until the bow of the boat has passed the mark. The bowsprit shall be retracted at the first reasonable opportunity after taking the spinnaker down.
Created: 20-Jul-07 11:48
Warren Nethercote
Nationality: Canada
0
Be careful of the J/111 and J/105 wording as a generalization.  My i550 has its pole on the centreline and cannot be retracted to the degree that the 'tip of the sprit is aft of the forwardmost point of the bow."  A simpler statement that the sprit 'shall be retracted' or 'shall not be extended' would be more general, albeit less explicit.  Don't protest committees thrive on uncertainty.  :-)
Created: 20-Jul-07 12:04
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Warren, good point!  Maybe “... remain fully retracted until ...” is more broadly applicable. 
Created: 20-Jul-07 12:18
Ekaterina Minakova
Nationality: Russian Federation
Certifications:
  • Regional Race Officer
  • Regional Judge
  • Umpire In Training
0
At a league event I've come across such language:
"The bowsprit shall be fully retracted at all times except when the gennaker is being set, is set, or is being retrieved, and shall be retracted at the first reasonable opportunity after the retrieval"
Created: 20-Jul-07 13:09
Andrew McIrvine
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • Judge In Training
0
i recall at the NYYC events in Swan 42s there was an automatic penalty if the sprit was left extended after the leeward gate. These rules are all possible in one design fleets, much more difficult in mixed fleets
Created: 20-Jul-07 13:13
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Ekaterina, that's good language too.  

We found it necessary to have the additional language regarding the windward mark, thus preventing boats from extending the sprit to establish an overlap at the zone or to close the door on a port-tacker crossing ahead at the mark inside the zone.  In those instances, approaching the windward mark they could certainly say they were in the process of setting the spin.
Created: 20-Jul-07 14:24
Matt Michel
Nationality: New Zealand
0
S already had right of way. Therefore can’t have acquired something they already had. Also, as the OP does not describe contact, just P tacking to avoid, it seems room to avoid was given, even if you are correct about S having acquired right of way at that time. 

Case 77 and 91 both refer to boats on the same tack, so not directly relevant here?

I can’t find a rule or case that directly disallows what S did, even though I had assumed ‘equipment in normal position’ applies. Even though ‘equipment in normal position’ is used in the RRS, it’s always in situations or rules not relevant to this. 

Rule 2 seems all that can be left, although it seems harder to prove unfair behaviour than a straight section 2 rule violation. 

There does seem to be some gaps in the RRS with regards to mix fleet racing. Many boats have no class rule, even if they had to observe them during mixed racing. 
Created: 20-Jul-07 19:42
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
1
Rule 2 seems all that can be left, although it seems harder to prove unfair behaviour than a straight section 2 rule violation. 
I think sometimes Rule 2 is the last refuge of an outraged protest committee. If you're not careful you can define almost anything that "seems wrong" as "unfair" sailing and I'm not sure it's a good thing to allow a PC that much discretion to invent violations.

In my mind unless there's some other rule violation I'd need something very obviously and extremely unfair or unsportsmanlike to assess a Rule 2 violation on it's own. I'm not sure this scenario (assuming no class rule applies) meets that standard for me.
Created: 20-Jul-07 20:08
Matt Michel
Nationality: New Zealand
0
Agreed Tim. 
Created: 20-Jul-07 23:28
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Tim Hohmann

I think sometimes Rule 2 is the last refuge of an outraged protest committee. If you're not careful you can define almost anything that "seems wrong" as "unfair" sailing and I'm not sure it's a good thing to allow a PC that much discretion to invent violations.

I couldn't agree with you more.

We should be very rigorous in applying the 'recognised principle'  and 'clearly established' parts of rule 2, and not go searching for rule 2 breaches in perfectly normal incidents.
Created: 20-Jul-07 23:34
P
John Allan
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • National Judge
  • Regional Race Officer
0
Matt Michel
said Created: Today 19:42

S already had right of way. Therefore can’t have acquired something they already had.

Agree

 Also, as the OP does not describe contact, just P tacking to avoid,

Very good point

Case 73 which would be the basis of a rule 2 conclusion, refers specifically to where contact has actually been made: it would require a substantial further 'stretch' to extend it to 'where contact would have been made'

Case 77 and 91 both refer to boats on the same tack, so not directly relevant here?

While one should always be cautious about headnotes, in the Case Book (unlike Law Reports) they form part of the Case and are equally authoritative as the main text of the Case.  Both the headnotes of Cases 77 and 91 (quoted above) refer generally to 'right-of'way boats'.  I think those Cases are wholly applicable here.

In fact I think Case 91 actually resolves this problem:  P saw the prod extended, and tacked away to keep clear of it.  In terms of Case 91 the prod was 'out of its normal position long enough ... to have been seen and avoided', and P avoided it and kept clear:  no rule was broken.

I can’t find a rule or case that directly disallows what S did,. 

In the absence of a NOR, SI or applicable Class Rule, I agree with you.

Rule 2 seems all that can be left, although it seems harder to prove unfair behaviour than a straight section 2 rule violation. 

Yes indeed.
Created: 20-Jul-07 23:50
Anto Sweetapple
Nationality: Australia
0
 Dear all,

Many thanks for all you kind considerations of my scenario.

The race was a mixed fleet, Winter Series race on Sydney Harbour - all on PHS handicap system.  I checked the Sailing Instructions and there is no reference to "retracting or deploying the prod" mentioned anywhere.  the only reference to anything to do with the bow is that "anchors protruding from the bow shall be removed"

From all the comments, it would appear the Starboard boat acted in accordance of the rules, with the possible exception of Rule 15
15 ACQUIRING RIGHT OF WAY
When a boat acquires right of way, she shall initially give the other boat room to keep clear, unless she acquires right of way because of the other boat’s actions.
as Andrew McIrvine identified.

and given that we (Port) had the opportunity to tack, and did tack to avoid contact - the Starboard boat did give us time to keep clear.

There are probably some grounds for a protest under Rule 2 as Matt and Tim identified however this is a bit ambigous and possibly grasping at straws.

I will write to the Sailing Committee and express my concerns on yachts racing to windward using their retractable prod as an impliment to aquire a right of way and suggest that the prods "shall remain retracted for the duration of the race with the exception of deploying, flying or retrieving asyms or spinnakers" or words to that effect.

many thanks for your knowledge and advice

Anto
Created: 20-Jul-07 23:58
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
1
Anto, there's no rule 15 issue as Starboard had acquired ROW some time before the incident.

For your proposed SI, I'd suggest something along the lines of "retractable bowsprit shall not be extended until the boat is in the zone of a mark and will be retracted as soon as is practicable after the spinnaker is taken down." That would prevent someone from extending their sprit in order to create an overlap and entitlement to mark room. But gives a little more leeway on the takedown as there may be other stuff going on.

I might suggest that PHRF associations consider adding such a rule to their Class Rules.
Created: 20-Jul-08 00:08
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
  • International Race Officer
2
Before saying that the the starboard tack boat broke no rules, and was competing ethically in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play, we should consider the first sentence of rule 2.
A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. 

If the protest committee were to find that:
1) The port tack boat was crossing clear ahead of the starboard tack boat by in excess of 3m.
2) As the port boat approached, the starboard tack boat extended their prod by 2.5m to 3.0m.
3) Once the starboard tack boat extended their prod, the port tack boat having a reasonable apprehension of collision with the prod, tacked to keep clear.
4) The starboard tack boat gave no reason for extending their prod. 

One might conclude that starboards action could have no other intention than to cause the port tack boat to tack or break rule 10.

This would appear to rise to gamesmanship, the use of methods, that are dubious or seemingly improper but not strictly illegal. Does gamesmanship, get one to fair sailing? If you look at Case 73, the leeward boat is not found to have broken any part 2 rules. However, because her action could have had no other intention than to cause the other boat to break a rule, they found the leeward boat broke rule 2. Also look at Case 47 A boat that deliberately hails “Starboard” when she knows she is on port tack has not acted fairly and has broken rule 2

The same would appear to apply in this incident. If starboard's action could have had no other intention than to cause the port to break rule 10, or force them to tack, doesn't this get you to rule 2? It does not appear necessary for the port tack boat to break rule 10, to reach a conclusion that the starboard boat broke rule 2.

Further the starboard tack boat could have a problem with rule 69. Did the starboard tack boat conduct an act of misconduct. Rule 69.1(b)(1) defines misconduct as 
conduct that is a breach of good manners, a breach of good sportsmanship, or unethical behavior;

The protest committee might also consider taking action under rule 69. However, be aware that rule 69 utilizes a different standard of proof, namely 'comfortable satisfaction', which is defined as lying in between the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' and the civil 'balance of probabilities'.
Created: 20-Jul-08 01:09
Nicholas Hutton
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
1
Thanks Mark. Very well expressed and very thorough. I don't think anyone could describe this as the last refuge of an outraged PC, but rather a reasoned application of the Rules.
Created: 20-Jul-08 02:00
Michael Turner
Nationality: Canada
Certifications:
  • International Judge
1
Agree with Mark 100% - intentionally extending the sprit to force another boat to tack is not sailing in a sportsmanlike manner or competing in fair play. 

We have had the issue occur here and as a result we put the following language in the general sailing instructions for all club events: 
"A right of way boat shall not hinder a give way boat by having her retractable bowsprit extended unless (a) she is setting a spinnaker, or (b) she has just dropped her spinnaker or (c) the bow of the boat has just passed a weather mark." 
Created: 20-Jul-08 03:52
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Anto, after looking at all the sprit language posted, I would suggest the J/111 is the best as the  J105/111/80 language (all basically the same)  has been honed by decades of experience and issues at this point. 

C.9.3 BOWSPRIT
(a) USE
(1) The bowsprit shall be fully retracted at all times except when the spinnaker
is being set, is set, or is being retrieved, and shall be retracted at the first
reasonable opportunity after the spinnaker is fully retrieved.
(2) Approaching a mark at which the spinnaker will be set, the bowsprit shall not be
extended until the bow reaches the mark. 

PS: FYI, the J105’s have an official Class Rule Interpretation regarding this issue as well, which touches on topics which might be helpful if you get into a dialog regarding your proposed SI with the RC. 

RI-14-01: DEFINITION OF "PASSING" THE WINDWARD MARK AND RETRACTION OF THE SPRIT
Created: 20-Jul-08 11:40
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
  • International Race Officer
0
Couple of additional comments in hindsight that I have included.

Case 47 "A boat that deliberately hails “Starboard” when she knows she is on port tack has not acted fairly and has broken rule 2." is another example where rule 2 is the only rule broken.

Also just because you conclude a boat broke rule 2, does not get you to a rule 69. Rule 69 utilizes a different standard of proof, namely 'comfortable satisfaction', which is defined as lying in between the criminal 'beyond reasonable doubt' and the civil 'balance of probabilities'.
Created: 20-Jul-08 16:48
P
Angelo Guarino
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Regional Judge
  • Fleet Measurer
0
Mark .. your last 2 posts are really nicely laid-out.  Thanks - Ang
Created: 20-Jul-08 17:02
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
1
With all due respect to Mark and to RYA who decided Case 73, I would offer a couple of alternative views:

1. I agree with the decision of Case 73 but would analyze it differently. By making contact with W who was keeping clear, L broke rule 14 by failing to avoid contact when it was reasonably possible for her to do so. L is exonerated by 14.2(b) but by knowingly breaking rule 14 L also broke rule 2 and is disqualified. It was not reasonably possible for W to avoid contact so W did not break rule 14. And I don't need to worry about anyone's intentions.

2. Case 73 as decided seems to hinge on the offender deliberately inducing the other boat to break a rule. Thus when Mark says "The same would appear to apply in this incident. If starboard's action could have had no other intention than to cause the port to break rule 10, or force them to tack, doesn't this get you to rule 2?" it seems to me that these are two different things. If S deploys the sprit late and suddenly in a way that seems likely to result in contact or causing P to break rule 10 then yes, I think S has not sailed fairly.
 
But if S determines that the cross may be close and deploys the sprit at some distance from P to discourage the cross, giving P time to decide to duck or tack, is that really any different from S pinching up (early, outside of 16.1 territory) to shut the door on the cross? Or S leaving the sprit deployed for the entire race for that matter?
 
Unless there's some rule in effect which prohibits S from deploying the sprit I think I'd consider that an acceptable level of gamesmanship. But I also think I'd still recommend that mixed fleets should have a rule limiting deployment of retractable sprits to avoid any controversy.
Created: 20-Jul-08 21:26
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
1
Case 47 also seems a little problematic to me. The breach of fair sailing appears to hinge on an experienced skipper on port deceiving a novice skipper on starboard, and inducing her to tack when she has ROW and no responsibility to keep clear. I do agree that this sort of behavior is to be discouraged. But should application of the rules depend on the experience level and rules knowledge of the competitors?

Suppose that both skippers are experienced and know the rules? If P hails "starboard" and S ignores the hail and maintains her course, has P still broken rule 2?

What if the experienced skipper on port hails "hey, keep clear!" rather than "starboard" and the inexperienced starboard skipper tacks or ducks. Is that a rule 2 violation?

Created: 20-Jul-08 21:31
Nicholas Hutton
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
0
It seems that we are seeing two widely differing world views here. No-one I know in the sport would consider a boat calling starboard when it is aware that it is on port as anything other than unsportsmanlike, not to mention dangerous, behaviour and to be condemned. No amount of 'the other skipper should know that the caller is not on starboard' would save him. There would be no intention that could be assigned to such an act other than the intention to deceive and no amount of sophistry could convince otherwise. Equally, a boat that for no other reason than to force a penalty increases its length by 3m unexpectedly and for no good reason falls into the same category. Gamesmanship is generally taken to mean gaining a psychological advantage and while often considered to be on the edge, is not always considered to be unsportsmanlike. The behaviour in the cited example goes beyond gamesmanship in that it is a physical act.
Created: 20-Jul-09 00:38
Ekaterina Minakova
Nationality: Russian Federation
Certifications:
  • Regional Race Officer
  • Regional Judge
  • Umpire In Training
0
Nicholas, Michael thank you for the comments.

I have rather similar view on the prod situation in question as Tim, while being on the same page with you regarding WS Cases.

Nicholas said:
" Equally, a boat that for no other reason than to force a penalty increases its length by 3m unexpectedly and for no good reason falls into the same category. "
I completely agree here, but what if the prod was extended in order to not let P cross for tactical reasons (to force her to tack and not let her cross and then cover) and was done on a fair distance and in fair time to let P keep clear?

On the contrary, let's say S doesn't extend the prod, P crosses and then tacks for no other reasons than to cover S. Or perhaps tacks slightly before the crossing to lee-bow position to force S to tack away.

Understanding both boats would execute gamesmanship, I find it hard to find the key facts that distinguishes these actions since both would comply with Part 2 of RRS.
I don't see any malicious intentions here to break a rule, deceive a competitor or compel him to break a rule that I assume to be key facts in WS cases to find the actions as violating principles of sportsmanship.

Would be great to get an insight from you  since it is rather difficult case for a less experienced judge as myself.


Created: 20-Jul-09 06:01
Mark Townsend
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • International Judge
  • International Race Officer
0
Ekaterina hopefully the following will help you understand my thought process with respect to rule 2.

A general definition of the “recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play" and “misconduct” would be helpful in The Racing Rules of Sailing as there are many different views around the world as to what constitutes the “recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play" and “misconduct.” Not wearing a blazer and tie might be considered misconduct in some yacht clubs, whereas wearing one in others might result in your tie being cut off and pinned to the bar ceiling in others!
 
In the 2013-2016 rule book the penalty for a breach of Fair Sailing was a DNE. This appeared to be inhibiting protest committees from upholding an allegation as the penalty was seen to be too severe. In the 2017-2020 rule book World Sailing changed Fair Sailing (Rule 2) and Misconduct (Rule 69). The penalty for a breach of Fair Sailing (Rule 2) was changed from "disqualification that is not excludable (DNE)", to "disqualification that is not excludable (DNE), disqualification (DSQ) or less than disqualification, or a warning." Similarly, Gross Misconduct (Rule 69) was changed to Misconduct for similar reasons.
 
Fortunately, world sailing has provided guidance to help officials, competitors and support persons understand the meaning of the terms “recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play" and “misconduct.”
  1. World Sailing publishes interpretations of the racing rules in The Case Book for 2017–2020 and recognizes them as authoritative interpretations and explanations of the rules. Read the cases related to rule 2 and you will gain an understanding of what constitutes a breach of rule 2. https://www.sailing.org/documents/caseandcall/case-book.php
  2. World Sailing Misconduct Guidance 2017 , which provides judges guidance as to how to handle misconduct hearings. Appendix F provides examples of actions that are generally accepted as unsportsmanlike. https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/2017WorldSailingMisconductGuidance-[22804].pdf
  3. World Sailing Judges Manual 2019, which provides guidance on process and procedure to help judges apply the rules fairly and consistently in making decisions.  https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/JudgesManualAugust20192-%5b25320%5d.pdf#page=134
 
Rule 2 is one of seven fundamental rules of sailing. The Case Book gives guidance as to what actions may be considered a breach of this rule and the principles of sportsmanship and fair play. It is also very important that we deal with fair sailing and misconduct promptly, consistently and fairly, following established rules and practices. Two Juries given the same set of facts should reach the same conclusions and decision. If they don’t competitors start to see the application of the rules as arbitrary and capricious.
 
The standard of proof for Misconduct hearings (rule 69) is the "Comfortable Satisfaction" test, see world sailing case 122. Fair sailing (rule 2) requires the Jury to “clearly establish that these principles have been violated.” Whereas the standard of proof for most other rules is the "Balance of Probability".
 
Fair Sailing hearings (Rule 2) requires that a competitor compete according to recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play. A protest under rule 2 is lodged against a boat and may be applied with or without another rule. A boat, the race committee, technical committee, or the protest committee may all initiate a protest under rule 2. The procedures governing protests under rule 2 are the same as for other protests, including validity testing. When determining whether a boat broke rule 2, the protest committee should re-read the section at the beginning of the rulebook entitled Sportsmanship and the Rules. If a boat knowingly breaks a rule and does not promptly take a penalty or retire, she may break rule 2. World Sailing Cases 27, 31, 34, 47, 65, 73, 74, 78 (as modified in the 2018 supplement), and 138 all address rule 2. Rule 2 requires that it be “clearly established” that the principles of sportsmanship and fair play  have been broken. When in doubt, the protest committee must conclude that the rule was not broken. Disqualifications may or may not be excluded from a boat’s series score at the discretion of the protest committee. If the protest committee assigns a disqualification that is not excludable, it must be noted in the scores with the designation DNE per rule A11. Further, a boat whose score in a race or series may have been made significantly worse by a boat breaking rule 2 may be entitled to redress under rule 62.1 (d).
 
IMHO… When a starboard tack boat extends their bowsprit, increasing its length by 3m, on an upwind leg for no other reason than to force a penalty, or prevent a port tack boat from crossing, it would seem to be not only unsportsmanlike, but also dangerous behavior.
 
Appendix F of the World Sailing Misconduct Guidance 2017, section 55.1.5 cites Gamesmanship, defined as behavior of questionable fairness but not strictly illegal, as a breach of fair sailing.
Created: 20-Jul-09 18:50
Greg Eaton
Nationality: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Certifications:
  • International Umpire
  • National Judge
0
"In the 2013-2016 rule book the penalty for a breach of Fair Sailing was a DNE. This appeared to be inhibiting protest committees from upholding an allegation as the penalty was seen to be too severe. In the 2017-2020 rule book World Sailing changed Fair Sailing (Rule 2) and Misconduct (Rule 69). The penalty for a breach of Fair Sailing (Rule 2) was changed from "disqualification that is not excludable (DNE)", to "disqualification that is not excludable (DNE), disqualification (DSQ) or less than disqualification,"

and we are back to DNE for breaches of Rule 2 with effect from Jan'21
Created: 20-Jul-14 20:02
Tim Hohmann
Nationality: United States of America
Certifications:
  • Club Judge
1
I wonder if the potential for reduced penalties in the 2017-2020 RRS led to an undesirable increase in rule 2 decisions to disqualify.

I kind of think that if it is "clearly established" that "recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play" have been violated, a more severe penalty is warranted. But PCs should establish a reasonably high standard for upholding an allegation. As Mark said above, if the PC is in doubt on rule 2 the benefit of the doubt should go to the accused.

I'd be interested in seeing the submission that led to that change.
Created: 20-Jul-14 20:29
Nicholas Hutton
Nationality: Australia
Certifications:
  • International Race Officer
2
The submissions are still on the WS website. It is submission 140-19. Worth a read. https://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/14019RacingRulesofSailingRule2-[25428].pdf
Created: 20-Jul-15 07:04
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more