Jump to content

Gordon W Davies

New Forum Member
  • Posts

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Personal Information

  • First Name
    Gordon
  • Last Name
    Davies

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Darin, I hope that your questions have been answered. The interpretation took a lot of work. Gordon
  2. An update to this discussion might be appropriate as both the rule and the call have changed. The relevant part of the rule reads: E4.3(b) if the boat gained an advantage in the heat or the race by her breach despite taking a penalty, her penalty shall be additional One-Turn Penalties until her advantage is lost. One point that is often lost in discussion on this rule - in the main body of the rules RRS 44.1(b) states : if the boat (...) despite taking a penalty, gained a significant advantage in the race or series by her breach her penalty shall be to retire. The Appendix E is intended to allow boats to continue racing! Answer 2 of Call P4 addresses the issue of what constitutes an advantage: A boat still has an advantage in the heat or race when, having taken one or more one-turn penalties, she has gained by her breach a place or places in that heat or race, or has not lost a place or places that she would have done if she had not broken a rule . See rule E4.3(b). Advantage should be measured from a time and position immediately before the boat broke the rule for which she is taking the penalty, until the completion of her last one-turn penalty. If the boat's position in the heat or race after taking one or more penalty turns is better than it would have been if she had not broken a rule, she has not completed her penalty and needs to make one or more further turns. If she fails to do so until she no longer has an advantage, she may be further penalized for her breach either following a hearing or, in umpired racing, by the umpire. Any advantage gained is to be measured relative to the whole fleet. A boat may, after taking one or more one-turn penalties, be in a better position than the boat she infringed, but in a worse position than if she had not broken a rule. In this case she has completed her penalty. As a result the current situation is that : - the advantage has to be gained by a breach of the rules; - if, despite taking a penalty, a boat has gained a place or places, or has not lost a place or places that she would have done if she had not broken a rule then she should take additional penalty turns; - advantage is to be evaluated relative to the whole fleet not to the boat she infringed. It would be interesting to receive feedback on how this rule and interpretation works on the water. Gordon Davies
  3. Yes, a boat MAY be protested. The question is should the protest committee conclude that the boat broke rule 31, Touching the Mark. PCs apply as the standard of proof the 'balance of possibilities' - whether it is more likely than not that an allegation or claim has been established (see WS Case 122). If the facts found are that an observer saw the mark move and inferred from that the boat touched the mark I would hope that the PC would conclude that the allegation has been not been established on the balance of probabilities. The issue is more acute in radio sailing as there is great pressure (under HMS) to retire rather than risk a protest hearing and possible disqualification. Observers are appointed by the Race Committee. The Race Committee should give clear instructions that observers hail contact only when they have clearly seen the contact, not when they have other, less direct, indications. Any protest would be initiated by the Race Committee, who should take care to ascertain what exactly the observer saw. Finally, the PC should be aware that they should only penalise if they have clear unambiguous evidence that a boat touched a mark. Gordon
  4. The rules are clear - a hail of 'Hold your Course' from a port tack boat has no meaning under the Racing Rules of Sailing. The port tack boat must keep clear (RRS 10) and the starboard tack boat IF she changes course must give a keep clear boat room to keep clear (RRS 16.1). Repeated hails that are meaningless or misleading are a clear breach of recognised principles of sportsmanship and fair play and breaks rule 2, Fair Play. Protest! Gordon
  5. The RYA runs a rules advisor scheme that provides a means to hold informal discussion on incidents after racing. This could be useful at radio sailing events. I agree that the more rules are discussed the better rule observance becomes. Just as long as the rules under discussion are the ones in the book, not half remembered memories or inventions. Perhaps, ensuring that a rule book is available at each event might help... The most difficult part of a judges job is establishing facts when the evidence given is contradictory. We have to use our own experience and establish facts ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY... which is a low level of proof. However, as the rules stand, we do have to find facts. Rough justice sometimes results, but that is better than waiting 2 hours for a decision. Gordon
  6. Darin, I believe that we would all prefer to prevent incidents occurring rather than resolve them by penalties or protests afterwards Calling the other boat and explaining very briefly the situation can be helpful to all competitors - and to observers and umpires. Perhaps one day we could run an experiment with an observer or umpire giving warnings -much as the rugby referees do in certain situations. For example, when umpiring, I will talk to my observer as the boats in to the mark (especially the leeward mark) indicating to him the order in which I expect them to round the mark (easier with IOMs as we can refer to colours) and which boats must give mark-room. Would it radically change the game if this information was available to competitors, or would it reduce the likelihood of a boat taking a chance and diving in to a gap. Gordon (Please note that any opinions expressed here are personal and do not represent the policy of any organisation of which I may be a member or officer!)
  7. Dave, Rule 5.3 effectively bans visual aids - but ONLY for umpires and observers - not the race committee. In the same way E5.3 restricts the umpires and observers to the control area (another good reason for defining one) but not the race committee. Gordon
  8. Dave, 1. Your suggested rule on control area is an excellent text for a race officers manual of best practice. As is your text regarding the course. However, I ma not convinced that they should be rules. It is always best to define a control area -if only to prevent umpires and observers from standing on the opposite bank. Hearing hails can be an issue. I am 'blessed' with a very loud voice so the issue does not arise. It often happens that an umpire or observer makes the effort to walk or run to be near a mark so that they can judge incidents easily, only to find that the competitor has not moved. Perhaps we can discuss the size of the control area in another thread. 2. There is no need to change any starting rules for a reaching or running start. Rule 22.1 is clear that after the start a boat returning to start shall keep clear of boats that are not returning. At all other times the rules of Part 2 section A apply. Personally I would recommend not using the I flag rule as it tends to encourage boats to avoid the middle of the line. IF, nad only if, the line was fair (which does not always mean square) after a general recall I suggest going straight to U flag. Gordon
  9. I have just read this thread. RRS are far simpler than they were before 1997. There was a substantial re-write published then. In comment I would remind readers that the rules of Part 2 are divided into 4 Sections. Section A Right of Way defines which boat must keep clear. Section B sets out General Limitations which limit what right of way boats can do. In this case: - Port has an obligation to keep clear of Starboard; - every time Starboard changes course she must give Port room to keep clear. Please note that this does NOT mean that Starboard cannot change course - as Port is hoping to cross ahead of Starboard rule 16.2 does not apply. - both boats must avoid contact if reasonably possible. This means that if Port hails 'Hold your course' this is essentially a meaningless hail. NO rule obliges Starboard to hold her course, however rule 16.1 tells us that she must give Port room to keep clear if she does change course. If Starboard does change course and Port either cannot avoid contact, or is obliged to make an un-seamanlike manoeuvre in order to avoid Starboard, then Starboard has broken rule 16.1 and rule 14. If Port could avoid Starboard but does not do so she breaks rule 10 and rule 14. On the other hand if Starboard clearly indicates that she will let Port cross ahead (usually for tactical reasons) she must allow Port to cross. If subsequently Starboard changes course in such a way that Port cannot keep clear then the PC should consider if Starboard has broken rule 2 Fair Sailing. Gordon PS RRS are not really suitable for 100 foot yachts. Which is why there is now an Appendix SY for super-yachts over 100 foot. Keeping clear means being over 40 metres away, mark-room is being 80 metres away and the zone (I believe) is 300 metres. Boats remain in constant radio contact. Mistakes can cost millions and lives!
  10. 1. I believe the intention of the original proposers of this rule was that only one extra turn would be required. Unfortunately judges only take account of the words of a rule not the intention. The rule is clear,if after taking A penalty a boat has gained a significant advantage her penalty shall be an additional One Turn Penalty. Having taken an additional turn the same test applies and additional turns may be required. 2. The rule does not refer to any disadvantage suffered by the infringed boat. The rule refers to gaining an advantage in the heat or race. It has been argued that a boat that was 6th in a race before infringing the rule and is 8th after taking a penalty has gained no advantage IN THE HEAT even if they are still in front of the infringed boat 3 The advantage must be due to the infringing boat's breach of the rule. Not subsequent poor boat handling by the infringed boat, or her inability to get out of irons because she decided to sail with a rig that is too big for the wind. 4 What constitutes an advantage? There are many possible answers. To sum up - this rule is a good idea, but requires re-wording and/interpretation. I am not convinced that proposed changes currently in the pipeline will solve these issues. Gordon
  11. David, As WS Case 99 points out in neither case you mention is a boat exonerated from breaking a racing rule. A boat temporarily losing control is still racing. Rule E2.3 changes this ONLY for boats that lose radio control. Another point - the rules of Part 2 When Boats Meet apply when boats are sailing in or near the racing area and intend to race, are racing or have been racing. So a boat that has retired is still subject to the rules of Part 2, although they can only be penalised for not avoiding contact resulting in injury or serious damage, or for interfering with a boat that was racing. Gordon
  12. WS Case 99 is clear - 'The fact that a boat required to keep clear is out of control does not entitle her to exoneration for breaking a rule of Part 2' It also adds 'When a right of way boat becomes obliged by rule 14 to avoid contact if reasonably possible, and the only way to do so is to crash-gybe, she does not break the rule if she does not crash-gybe' I would add that: - a right of way boat is still subject to rules 15, 16 and 17 even if out of control - although the case refers specifically to a crash gybe, the same principle would apply if a RoW is required to make any unseamanlike manouevre. Rule E2.3 allow a boat out of radio control once they have hailed 'Out of Control' to retire with no further penalty if they break any Part 2 rule. A boat cannot 'unretire' if she subsequently regains radio control. Gordon
  13. Under RRS 44.1 A boat MAY take a penalty when she MAY have broken a rule. The penalty is voluntary and does not imply that the does has broken a rule. Taking a penalty may be an insurance policy. Another point is that both boats may have broken a rule. So, a boat may take a penalty and then protest. However there are no grounds for redress if a boat takes a penalty but is later found not to have broken a rule. The situation is somewhat different under IRSA Add. Q. Once a boat has taken a penalty the umpires cannot penalise either boat. However, if no decision is hailed by an umpire then a boat is entitled to a hearing. Gordon
  14. The simple answer is yes (unless you happen to be sailing an RC Laser, or are sailing in Spain as this class and this national authority have changed rule 31). Knowing that you have touched a mark and sailing on is not sailing in compliance with recognised principles of fair play and sportsmanship, thus breaking rule 2 Fair Sailing. The presence of observers, who may not make a hail of contact, does not relieve the sailor of the responsibility of following and enforcing the rules A fundamental principle of sportsmanship is that when a competitor breaks a rule they will promptly take a penalty (see Basic Principle). Gordon
  15. David, Step 1 - identify what the rules and regulations state, and what this means (I presume that this is what you call 'regurgitating') Step2 Apply the rules and regulations to a given situation Step 3 If Step 2 produces outcomes that are not considered desirable then debate what needs to be changed to produces a desired outcome. Step 4 Work on implementing changes. 1/ Can an event not by sanctioned WS or IRSA be legitimately be described as a World or Regional event. All World Championships have to be approved by WS. There are several ways of obtaining approval for radio sailing events, only one of which involves IRSA. See my previous post 2/ Is a suspension / ban or other form of sanction on competing in a World Sailing / IRSA event reasonable if you compete in a Non-sanctioned Event? Disciplinary action MAY be taken by World Sailing against sailors participating in an event that WS has declared to be prohibited. Prohibition is not automatic,WS has to decide to prohibit an event. IRSA has no power either to prohibit an event or to discipline a sailor who participates in a prohibited event. Bans for participating in prohibited events are very rare, and would only be justified if there was a serious breach of regulations, and at the end of a long procedure. 3/ Is the European Commission's ruling applicable to World Sailing / IRSA and is World Sailing / IRSA compelled in any way to revise it's rules by this ruling ? Maybe. We will not know until this ruling has been tested in the courts. I suspect that any judgement will only apply to professional sport, and that sporting organisations will be lobbying hard to obtain a modified ruling. EU Competition rulings tend to favour a very neo-liberal/ free (unregulated) market interpretations that are not necessarily supported by other EU institutions. 4/ Should WS or IRSA be compelled to recognise a new Class or is It the responsibility of a Class Association to seek recognition For WS an application is required, however in WS it is the Class Association that is designated. Within IRSA the situation is more confused - Class Associations may become Associate or Provisional members (see IRSA Con 5.1). However IRSA Con 2 seems to indicate that an IRSA Class status is not directly related to a Class Association The text reads 'The granting and withdrawal of IRSA Class status'. No mention of the Class Association. This confusion is repeated in Con 9.1: 'The government of IRSA Classes may be delegated to an International Class Association.' This seems to indicate that IRSA is the governing body of IRSA Classes which it may decide to delegate to a Class Association. It is a requirement of recognition that an active class association is operating. However in the class rules voted in 2016 it is stated 'Where one does not exist, the functions of the ICA, as specified in these class rules, shall be carried out by the IRSA.' So: Neither WS or IRSA can be compelled to recognise a new class. For WS the class association must apply for recognition. For IRSA, the class association does not seem to be obligatory. IRSA can declare that IRSA is actively functioning as a class association and apply to IRSA for IRSA recognition! 5/ Should a sub-class, i.e. a class within a class be granted separate International status namely DF65 and RJ65 This has already happened within WS - International Moth/Europe, Laser one hull, 3 rigs, three classes. Other classes sail quite happily using several versions of the class rules - International 14s, 5.5M, 6 M... I beleive that the class association should choes what is best for the future of the class. Unfortunately we now have 3 'classes' DF65, RG65 and IRSA 65. I do not know if any boat can conform to all 3 years. Hope this answers your questions
×
×
  • Create New...