• Mark Room, RoW, Proper Course, Exoneration
  18 Comments
  Stewart Campbell Thu 14:41
• Case Index Enabled/Fixed on Mobile Devices/Browsers
  0 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Wed 20:39
• RRS Org's Search-Function is Upgraded
  8 Comments
  Angelo Guarino 25-Nov-08 20:13
• 18.1(a)(2)
  17 Comments
  Nicolas Ch. 25-Nov-08 13:02
• How long is the race committee allowed to change the position of the first windward mark?
  51 Comments
  Christian Hartmann 25-Nov-05 19:30

• Fair Play and Disputes: What Happens When Coaches Speak Disrespectfully?
  There were a couple of US Sailing RRS 69 cases, back in about 2009 that somewhat spectacularly miscarried.  Some protest committees hold the belief that RRS 69 is a 'nuclear option' and its use exposes the protest committee to the risk of legal action if there is the slightest procedural misstep.
  
  This is a somewhat outdated view.
  
  Up until 2013, WS or a MNA under the powers in RRS 69 had the power of 'suspending eligibility, permanently or for a specified period of time, to compete in any event ... '.  For professional sailors this was readily able to be interpreted as a restraint of trade, and could easily lead to court action in the CAS or a civil jurisdiction.
  
  In 2013 and 2017 RRS 69 was changed significantly by:

  • introducing provision for a person to present the case against the accused in the hearing so that there was an accuser and an accused in the hearing and the protest committee was not acting as prosecutor, judge and jury,
  • introducing a right for the accused to have an advisor and a [legal] representative with them who may act on their behalf
  • introducing the standard of proof of 'comfortable satisfaction'
  • raising the threshold of reporting to the MNA from anything above a warning to a penalty above DNE
  • removing all powers of investigation and penalisation by a MNA or WS from RRS 69 and relying solely on the MNA/WS by-laws or regulations.

  
  Here's the main submission
  
  Submission 201-15
  Rule 69, Appendices M & N
  A submission from the Chairmen of the Constitution Committee, Race Officials Committee and Racing Rules Committee
  Purpose or Objective
  To update RRS 69 to remedy shortcomings based on experience since the current version was introduced, and in response to the undertaking to CAS to review the processes.
  The rule should be updated to achieve the following:
  (i) remove the concept of “Gross” misconduct as distinct to misconduct from this rule;
  (ii) to reintroduce a rule of misconduct by supporters, coaches and similar;
  (iii) to maintain the concept of increasing penalties determined by the severity of the misconduct;
  (iv) to establish a higher threshold before the decision of a protest committee should be notified to a national authority or ISAF; and
  (v) to remove from the rule the procedures to be followed by ISAF, which will be set out in a new or amended Regulation generally.
  To improve the guidance to protest committees acting under rule 69.
  To update RRS Appendix N (International Juries) in line with the new RRS 69 and to improve the guidance for the conduct of hearings.

  
  The changes to RRS 69:

  • remove the notion that a RRS 69 hearing is a 'star chamber' in which the protest committee acts as accuser, judge and jury, and the accused is unable to be properly advised and represented.
  • make it clear that it is a purely 'sporting' rule affecting places in races, or participation in a single series of races, and 

  
  The effect of this change has been to reduce the risk that a person subject to RRS 69 action will think it necessary to pre-emptively engage in litigation against the protest committee and, given the entitlement to have advice and representation in the hearing and the effect of RRS 4.3, reduces the risk that any such litigation will succeed.
  John Allan Yesterday 23:08
• Mark Room, RoW, Proper Course, Exoneration
  I agree except in those special cases there is no need to saila proper course.
  Here when looking for exoneration,  if you are sailing, as here above a proper course. it is hard to say you are sailing within the mark room you are entitled to. 
  Here using the proper course test, we know you are no longer allowed to sail to the mark. 
  You are / have rounded. What mark room is left? 
  Here you seem to have no prorection at all, but 18 still applies as you have not yet left the mark astern because of your a course. 
  Michael Butterfield Yesterday 07:33
• How long is the race committee allowed to change the position of the first windward mark?

  Niko,   I think there can be value in the +/- five degrees in certain situations. Where we frostbite on Boston Harbor, we're liable to get big swings, and RC will often leap-frog the windward and offset to aim a little bit closer to the new shift in case it stays. In other words, shifting a buoy 4 degrees is regularly the right move in an 8 degree shift. Whether they should then signal is up for debate, but I'd argue that most can still find the mark, and it takes some risk (and work) off for the RC that might encourage them to be a little more active. Just my opinion. 

  
  I think the whole point of Race Management Policies s12 is to discourage race committees from being too 'precious' about small shifts.  Here's the guidance
  
  12, Change in wind direction:
  (a) With a persistent wind shift of 10° or less the course will not be changed unless necessary to adjust for current or to provide a true downwind leg.
  (b) Between 10° and 15° consideration will be given to adjusting the course to the new wind provided that the race committee is confident that the shift is likely to persist.
  (c) With a persistent wind shift of more than 15°, the race committee will attempt to change the course to the new wind
  
  Note that the WS Race Management Policies are intended to apply at WS Championship and Olympic events.  I would suggest at lower level events the criteria should be quite significantly increased.
  
  What s12(a) is saying is that unless there is a persistent wind shift of more than 10 degrees, leave the course alone.
  
  Far from 'encouraging race committees to be more active', the guidance is intended to encourage them not to dither around.
  
  I suggest that a 4 degree change is unnecessary.
  
  In my opinion, switching off the requirements of RRS 33 is a bad idea,  race committees should accept the guidance in the Race Management Policies and put themselves to the discipline involved in RRS 33.
  John Allan Thu 21:17
• Port-Starboard vs Mark Room at Leeward Mark
  Stewart, I'm sure you've snatched many a pebble from a hand. 
  
  Again, I understand the connection you are making .. I'm just suggesting that, when explaining it to others, you are better off not combining them.
  
  Actually, Case 75 is a good example why ...
  
  In Case 75, the ROW boat is also entitled to MR.  In the discussion it is stated that ... 
  
  

  "When S gybed just after position 2, she had not sailed farther from the mark than needed to sail her proper course. Indeed, in the absence of P (the boat "referred to" in the definition Proper Course), S's proper course might well have been to sail even farther from the mark and higher than she did, so as to make a smoother, faster rounding and to avoid interference with her wind by being backwinded or blanketed by other boats ahead, and to be far enough upwind after leaving the mark astern that she could tack without breaking rule 13. "

  
  However, if we change the scenario such that both boats are on the same tack, and inside is not ROW and will not have to gybe ... 18.4 does not come into play ... and the inside KC boat will not get the extra space as described above in the Case 75 quote. 
  
  In that scenario, inside could be sailing inside her PC but be outside of her MR. 
  Angelo Guarino Thu 12:02
• Another 18.3 scenario
  Rule 18.3 was changed in the 2024-28 book'  The first sentence now reads;
  
  "If a boat passes HTW from port to starboard tack in the zone of a Mark to be left to port, rule 18.2 does not apply between her and another boat ON STARBOARD TACK that is fetching the Mark.".
  
  In the subject scenario, when Yellow passed HTW in the zone, Blue was not on Starboard tack, so rule 18.2 was not switched off, and Yellow was still entitled to Mark-Room. When Blue then passed HTW the other boat Yellow is was on Starboard tack so 18.2 was switched off again.
  
  
  
  
  
  Phil Mostyn Thu 07:24

Forums Leader Board

This Month