Gordon W Davies

Are our issues course distance related, venue related, skipper behaviour related or umpire standard related? A short answer: Yes, the issues are course distance related, venue related, skipper behaviour related AND umpire standard related! In an ideal world: An ideal venue would allow marks to be set at no more than 60m to the shore, yet allow for a decent windward leg, in all common wind directions. Setting a course with the wind coming off the shore, with trees or building obstructing the wind flow, will never be a good idea. I would argue that, in reality, the number of venues suitable for a World or Continental Championship is very small. Competitors would sail conservatively to avoid risky manouevres, and take a penalty when they may have broken a rule. There are still some sailors (even in a Worlds A heat who NEVER take a voluntary penalty but wait for an umpire decision. Major radio sailing nations would insist on national and some regional events being umpired, so that there was a far large reservoir of experienced umpires available for Worlds and Continentals. For my part: I recognise that my umpiring is completely different when I am following the part of the fleet near the shore. I can follow most incidents among the 6 or 7 boats I am following. When I am following the boats outside: I cannot read sail numbers of boats beyond the outside start mark, of the boats that tack away from the shore, nor the boats on the layline coming in to the windward mark. This also means that I, and most sailors, cannot judge laylines nor rapidly analyse relative speed, angle and distance between these boats. This means, for instance, that,if I cannot accurately judge the distance between two overlapped (and incognito) boats, how can I decide if the outside boat has not given enough mark-room to round the mark without touching it. During the Worlds , the RC made a real effort to keep the windward mark within about 75m of the shore. This meant that I, my colleagues and nearly all the observers we worked with could read the sail numbers when boats were approaching the offset mark! Windward gates provide a partial solution, in that there are (usually) fewer boats rounding each mark. Outside-in gates create a further zone with a high potential for incidents a few boat lengths down wind from the gate. We may have to change our umpiring strategy by placing an umpire to observe this area, which may mean that there will be only one umpire for both leeward marks!

When using the inside out gate with offsets on each side we observed that most boats made a starboard tack approach. The result: two lines of boats each on the layline to the mark. The boats on the leeward layline could bail-out by tacking, those on the windward layline by bearing away. They would then round the opposite mark, passing a short distance to windward of the mark, avoiding any congestion.

Thank you Derek for pointing us in the direction of one key point in the discussion. He refers to the issue of identifying boats. Many of the issues encountered at the windward mark disappear or are significantly reduced if all sailors and race officials can see what is happening! If all participants can easily read sail numbers this means that they can also better judge: Laylines The distance between overlapped boats Whether boats are on a collision course When the marks are set too far away, umpires and observers spend a great deal of time just trying to read sail numbers, in case there is an incident. This is especially the case for the umpire watching the far end of the start line. At Datchet there was hardly a start at which umpire and observer could read the sail numbers of boats beyond the outside start mark. There are particular issues at the windward mark when it is set more than about 65-70m from the control area and the fleet is sailing from right to left. Boats on port are sailing away from the shore and the sail number is invisible. The boats approaching on starboard cannot judge accurately if they are on the lay line, above it or below it. So we have, for the observer or umpire, two orn more unidentified boats heading towards the area around the mark (NB, in certain lights at Datchet even hull colours were difficult to see). The worst pile ups at the windward mark in these conditions are frequently caused by the starboard tacker, realising, when they have already entered the zone, that they are below the layline. If they are only slightly below, they may attempt to luff, causing boats outside and astern to also luff and slow, even stall. Otherwise the boat (still unidentifiable from the control area) will tack and aim for a gap that may or may not exist. If the gap does not exist, chaos is almost guaranteed. Even if the observers and umpires can follow the (unidentified) boat until the sail number is legible (often just before or after the offset mark) the damage has been done. The race has been ruined for several boats. There is also an issue with umpiring culture. Umpires will not penalised a boat unless they are certain that the boat has broken a rule.They will need to be even more certain before giving a penalty under RRS 2, Fair Sailing. The obvious solution is to lay marks closer to the control area. This creates other issues, as race officers wish to set a balanced windward leg. When the course is close to the shore, both sailors and race officials can see what is happening. The number of incidents is greatly reduced, and the percentage of incidents resulting in an umpire decision increases. So, when choosing a venue for a major event, a key criteria should be 'can the race committee set courses in all (or at least the most frequent) wind directions with marks less than 65-70m from the shore?' I have come to believe that there are very few venues that can met that criteria. I have been to a few venues that did meet that criteria - Fleetwood (the lake is only 62m wide), Limone (on Lake Garda), Nynasham I hope I spelt that right,) (Sweden , DF65 Globals), Ste Hilaire (only on the far shore, but the distances to walk were enormous) to mention a few. One issue in Datchet, as an umpire I was making a concious effort to walk up as far as possible to get close to the windward mark, to get as near as possile to the leeward gate and to get to the finish line. At most events I would be close to at least the better sailors in the heat. This was far less the case during the Worlds. In particular, many sailors were standing well to leeward of the finish line. I remember one leeward gatemark rounding where there were only 1 or 2 sailors with 50m of me. I think I hailed 4 mark contacts and note 2 marks not rounded. I am fairly sure that the competitors, from where they were standing, did not see the mark contact.

Is there anyone on this forum who atended bothe the M/1OR Worlds last year and the IOM Worlds this year? If so I would be very interested to read their opinion on the windward gates used: M/10R: inside out gate with offset marks on both sides of the gate IOM: outside in gate In particular I wish to know if, in your opinion, different gates: reduce the number of incidents at the windward mark; distribute or concentrate the fleet at the start of the run; allow boats to bail out if they mis-mis-judge the lay line, or which to avoid a congested mark facilitate the work of the observers and umpires; facilitate the setting of fair courses. As a judge/umpire a both events I have a personal opinion which I wil reveal if this thread has some replies. I may well be that my opinion will be very different ffrom that of competing sailors.

The IRSA Race Management Policies state: General Recall 8.1In case of any problems with the starting line (such as length, or angle to the wind,etc.) a postponement may be signalled, even up to the last second before the start, instead of a general recall. 8.2 If a race management error is discovered after the starting signal (e.g. timing), the course management team may abandon the race. In these circumstances, the course management team will not signal a general recall. 8.3 When the course management team is not satisfied that all boats over early (or that have broken rules 30.1, 30.3 or 30.4) have been identified, a general recall will be signalled. 8.4 In the event the start has been postponed, or a general recall has been caused by the length or angle of the starting line, the course management team will adjust the starting line and make another attempt using the same preparatory signal. 8.5 If the course management team is satisfied that a general recall was not the result of the length or angle of the starting line or a course management team action, it will signal the use of a rule 30 starting penalty (I flag, U flag or black flag) for each subsequent attempt to start the heat 8.6 An important principle to be followed by the course management team is that rule 30 starting penalties will only be used when general recalls are caused by the boats themselves, or rapid oscillations of the wind, and not by actions of the course management team. 8.7 When using the black flag, the course management team will make every effort to signal a postponement in the event of any problems with the starting line. These policies closely mirror those of WS.

This is the fundamental flaw of the outside in windward gate. At the M/10R Worlds last year the RC set an inside out gate with offset marks on each side of the gate. Once the sailors had worked out how this worked there was a significant reduction on incidents at the mark. Few boats attempted an approach on the port layline. Instead boats approached on the starboard layline of both marks. Boats that came up the left hand side of the course would sail to the left hand mark layline. Boats on starboard would form two queues along the layline. One advantage is that if there was an issue ahead it was always possible to bail out at the last moment by heading for the other mark (either by tacking or bearing away). This is an advantage when the marks have to be set some distance from the shore. As boats arriving to the right-hand mark had to tack to round the mark, the RC set the offset leg on that side slightly shorter

Darin, Redress in this case - becoming disabled because of the action of a boat breaking a rule of Part 2 - can only be given if : - the boat requesting redress's score has been made significantly worse - through no fault of her own (however minor the fault) - for instance could she have avoided the contact - if the boat breaking a rule of Part 2 has been penalised or took a penalty. See RRS E6.6 NB: there is no minimum time for being entangled - just long enough for a boat's score to be made significantly worse. In some case's this may be only a few seconds.

One reason why judges have a long training process is to ensure consistency in applying the rules. From memory (I was not on the panel that decided this case): in this case two boats were entangled for a very short period. They were therefore disabled. The jury found that neither boat's place was made significantly worse while the boats were entangled. Once the boats were separated and able to continue in the race one boat, I presume yours, was in irons. As the boat was able to continue in the race no redress could be given. There is no redress for a boat (of whatever size) that is in irons following an incident, or, in the case of a dinghy, capsizes.

The key question is, how long does an entanglement have to last. - long enough to make a boat's score significantly worse.

The 'unable to continue on the race' has been consistently interpreted, as being in a situation in which the person controlling a boat cannot perform a seamanlike action to enable the boat to progress in the race. This includes being entangled with another boat, with vegetation in the water or on the bank, running aground, or damaged. Only by luck, or by the intervention of the a safety vessel, can the boats may become 'un-disabled', and then return to the race. On the other hand, the persons controlling boats that are rafted together, but not entangled, or a boat that is in irons, can perform seamanlike actions with the rudder and sheet that can enable the boat to return to the race. When discussing redress following an incident in which a boat is disabled the jury will ask: - was the boat disabled -did she become disabled because to the action of another boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2. Did the other boat take a penalty and or was penalised. - was the boat's place in the heat or race made significantly worse while she was disabled. How many place's did the boat lose while she was disabled. - was the boat at fault in any way. For instance, if the boat could have avoided the contact and thus becoming disabled then she will not get redress. A relatively common occurence is when two boats become entangled, then break free but one boat (who may have grounds for redress) then gets stcuk in irons. Any redress given will be for places lost from the time the boat became entangled until she broke free.

There is a team racing call C2 which illustrates the rules that apply; TR Call C2 Gordon Call C2.pdf

World Sailing has issued a Q and A concerning the new obligatory hail for room to tack: in radio sailing ‘[my sail number] Room to Tack’ When the hail does not conform to the required wording there were two options: the hail was considered to break RRS 20.1 and the hailed boat was required to respond by tacking or hailing ‘You Tack’. The hailed boat could protest the hailing boat for the incorrect hail; or the incorrect hail was considered not to be a request for room to tack. The hailed boat is not required to respond. Rule 20.2 does not apply and the rules of Section A and B do. The Q and A panel has chosen the second option. A hail for room to tack that does not include ‘[my sail number] Room to Tack’ is not a correct hail therefore RRS 20.2 does not apply. This may lead to situations in which a hailing boat believes that they are entitled to room to tack, and the hailed boat believes that they do not have to respond. It also means that different rules will apply depending on whether the boats are initially on port or on starboard. Our experience at the M/10R Worlds were that some sailors learnt to use the obligatory hail quite easily. Others did not. The umpires explained several times the reasoning behind the hail of ‘my sail number. This serves to identify the boat that requires room to tack. There may be several boats that need to respond, and it is unlikely that the hailing boat can identify them all. The umpires reminded sailors who made an incorrect hail that they should make the correct hail. We shall see how this works out. I look forward to your reactions (please try and remain with the limits of forum decorum!) 2025 7 room to tack.pdf

There is a WS Q&A, recently published, that addresses the issue of 'advantage'. This upholds the principles set out in the Radio Sailing Calls. Previously David wrote: IOMs are particularly long and narrow, more like a canal boat than a racing dinghy. Just being close to another boat creates a handicap even if there is no contact. Two boats can become temporarily 'disabled' without any infringement. Two boats that are close to each other, or even touching each other, are able to manouevre and continue racing.They are not disabled. Neither is boat that is in irons. In both cases there are acts of seamanship that allow the person controlling the boat to manoeuvre the boat. A boat is disabled while it is unable to continue in the race: this may be because it is entangled with another boat, or vegetation, aground... In these cases there is nothing the person controlling the boat can do. 2025 2 advantage.pdf

This happens quite often in dinghy and keelboats There is usually a chain of protests, often initiated by the PC as they learn the facts. It seems to me that now the windward boat who hit the mark could protest the furthest leeward mark.

P passes head to wind from port to starboard. Rule 18.2 does not apply and 18.3 does. P reaches close hauled on starboard without any boat needing to take avoiding action. P does not break RRS 13 P initially gives A Band C room to keep clear as required by RRS 15. A Band C have been on starboard since entering the zone and are all fetching the mark. The second part of 18.3 applies. A luffs to avoid contact with P, B luffs to avoid contact with A and C luffs above close-hauled to avoid contact with B. P has caused C to luff above close-hauled and breaks RRS 18.3 Assuming A was in 1st place as she entered the zone. If P had passed astern of A, B, and C, and thus avoided breaking RRS 18.3, she would have rounded the mark in 4th place. So, after taking a penalty she should be in 4th place or worse. If noy she should take another penalty.