Forums

Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.

Powered by WIND


Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • John, I absolutely agree with you about reasonableness in crossing situations and the like. Whether apprehension of a collision is reasonable must depend on skill level of both parties. We could even, maybe, argue that if an elite level competitor shaves inches crossing a novice that novice may be reasonably apprehensive of a collision even though another elite competitor would not be. 

    But i still think this does not transfer across to the definition of room. The definition has nothing to say about the actual competitors. If we turn it round, and consider elite competitors, if in a mark rounding outside gives inside so little room that only an expert could navigate without contact then they have not complied with the definition, surely we agree on this. 

    But lets look at it from another direction. If I am an elite competitor with a novice inside, what is required of me? I certainly have a reasonable apprehension of a collision if I only give as much room as a fully competent crew requires. And RRS14 means I must avoid that collision if reasonably possible, which certainly means giving more room than a competent crew would require. But does inside novice break RRS18 if  she sails outside the room a competent crew would be able to stay within? To my mind case 21 suggests she does. It lists all sorts of factors that affect what is room, but doesnt list competence. Indeed, it goes some way in the other direction with the phrase reasonable efficiency. Although I suppose you could argue that what is reasonable efficiency depends on crew expertise, I suggest that is requiring too much knowledge about the other boat.
    Today 02:17
  • Clark,

    Have a read of Juno v Endeavour

    Torruella J was emphatically of the view that a protest committee decision constituted a binding arbitration under US commercial arbitration law.


    Thus, the CHARLES JOURDAN and the ENDEAVOUR were contractually bound to race by the rules of the road contained in the IYRRs, and to resolve issues related to fault for any collisions according to those rules. This is consistent with the long-established traditions and rules of conduct of this sport. See generally J. Rousmaniere, The Golden Pasttime: A New History of Yachting (1986). Moreover, there is a well-established public policy encouraging the private resolution of disputes through arbitration and other non-judicial forums. See Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.; Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. Dobson, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 834, 130 L. Ed. 2d 753 (1995); Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 107 S. Ct. 2332, 96 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1987); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 10, 104 S. Ct. 852, 858, 79 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1984). See also United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36, 108 S. Ct. 364, 369-70, 98 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1987) (labor disputes); Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V SKY REEFER, 29 F.3d 727 (1st Cir.) (COGSA), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 115 S. Ct. 571, 130 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1994); Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 94 S. Ct. 2449, 41 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1974) (international arbitration agreements).

    We also note that our decision here comports with Sec. 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which pointedly states that "[a] written provision in any maritime transaction ... to settle by arbitration a controversy arising out of such ... transaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable." These conditions exist here.9  Yacht racing is a maritime transaction, and the provisions of the IYRR establishing the racing rules and the protest procedures are in writing and binding on participants.
    Yesterday 22:16
  • Thank you Chin In.
    Yesterday 13:38
  • This appears to be a very old conversation. While I loved Sail100 I have seen comments that it no longer works with the current versions of Excel. KSail is the current go-to platform for results services and very good at it. That said, I an not convincd that Swiss Lague does what it says. I am no mathemetician but the "shall not meet again" criteria does appear to be critical. It can result in a bounce effect, and we still get a number of matches which are not competitive. I have a sneaking feeling that the older system of grading competitors in a series of leagues and then going gold silver bronze leagues MAY have prodced better racing. 
    Sat 22:18
  • Al, not sure the 2nd or 3rd bullet are correct. 

    • Rule 14.a: If reasonably possible, a boat shall avoid contact with another boat
    • Rule 16.1: When a right-of-way boat changes course, she shall give the other boat room to keep clear. 
    • Per definitions, both boats are windward boats, so per Rule 11, both boats need to keep clear of each other. 

    The definition Leeward Windward says "When two boats on the same tack overlap, the one on the leeward side of the other is the leeward boat. The other is the windward boat." As neither boat is on the leeward side of the other, there is no leeward boat, so there cannot be a windward boat. Rule 11 does not require either boat to keep clear of the other boat. Which means rules 15, 16, and 17 of Section B which limit the actions of a right-of-way boat do not apply.

    • Rule 14.a: If reasonably possible, a boat shall avoid contact with another boat.
    • If there is contact Rule 43.1(c) does not apply as neither boat is the right-of-way boat, or one sailing within the room or mark-room to which she is entitled.
    Thu 14:51
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more