Skip to main content

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

  • Matt: RRS 63.5(a) tells us the basics of how to find 'the facts', but if you want to know more then it is well worth reading section F.5 of the WS Judges Manual which includes 2.5 full pages explaining the application of rule 63.5.

    If there is conflicting evidence then the PC can always ask additional questions (of the parties or witnesses), weight the evidence, and may ultimately need to rely on the balance of probabilities. And if there are irrecooncilable differences of opinion between the the members of the PC then it can alsways be put a a vote.
    Today 00:19
  • Jim But doesn't reasonable apprehension only come into it if the apprehensive actually takes action as a result of the apprehension?
    The point i was making was that if we changed 'need' to 'compel' in Definition Keep Clear, the reasonable apprehension test in Case 50 would go out the window.
    Yesterday 22:24
  • Ang I as well .. was just trying to clearly describe where/how the ambiguity resides that you pointed out. 

    And I appreciate it.

    (Why do I suddenly feel like I'm Charlie Brown and you're Lucy holding the ball! <g>). 

    I never called you a blockhead.
    Mon 19:26
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more