The Racing Rules of Sailing |
1693 Posts
|
|
Rule 18 and Room at the Mark |
168 Posts
|
|
Protest Committee & Hearing Procedures |
100 Posts
|
|
Match and Team Racing Rules |
46 Posts
|
|
Race Committee & Race Management |
75 Posts
|
|
Rules 2 and 69 |
43 Posts
|
|
Training Materials, Presentations and Classes |
57 Posts
|
|
Share Your SI/NOR Language |
46 Posts
|
|
Event Management & Forum System (Q's, Comments & Suggestions) |
165 Posts
|
|
繁體中文論壇 - Traditional Chinese Channel |
2 Posts
|
|
Regole e dintorni - Italian Channel |
48 Posts
|
I'm not suggesting protesting a dead sailor,
Neither was I. I was suggesting the reason to enable 40.2(b) was to avoid the headline. Or at least to avoid the subsequent articles of "racer wore lifejacket during race, but took it off to sail home and then drowned"
and I wouldn't expect an OA to want to do anything for other than an egregious breach.
Neither would I.
And I struggle to decide what an egregious breach is! Someone burning their lifejacket in protest perhaps!
However, does that fact it is in the RRS and enabled by the SI mean the OA might be forced to investigate?
I can imagine the scenario where to bitter rivals are competing at an event. The prizes come down to the final race. The 'gold medal winner' sails home without his lifejacket on. Can silver (his bitter rival) protest?
And in my other doomsday situation. A club (the OA) has hosted the same event for 3 years. They have enabled 40.2(b) identically for 3 years. They did so to reduce the risks of an adverse incident being attributed to their event (it might well be stated on the risk assessment for instance). In years 1 and 2, it was known that sailors then sailed without lifejackets on the way home. No adverse incident occurs in year 1 and 2. But no actual enforcement of the rule took place because the breach wasn't felt egregious.
In year 3 a sailor falls overboard without a lifejacket on, while sailing home. At the subsequent enquiry, the OA are asked to attend and state they considered the risks, they even enabled 40.2(b) knowing that should mitigate the risks. How might failure to enforce 40.2(b) affect them¿
I'm based at an inland dinghy club. We have a 100% PFD rule for on the water and on the jetty (our jetty doesn't float). There are times it isn't enforced (it's a nice sunny day, the risks are low, the sailor is very competent and just walking along the jetty to collect something and return ashore... ...but rules are rules... ...not that I expect disqualification!
It feels like [NP] [DP] could be helpful here.
But it also feels like if sailors are leaving your water 40.2(b) might not be helpful even if the risk manager feels it is
| 1 | John Allan | 6.65K |
| 2 | Catalan Benaros | 3.4K |
| 3 | Satish Kumar Kanwar | 2K |
| 4 | Craig Priniski | 1.8K |
| 5 | Justin Scott | 1.65K |