Gordon W Davies

Darin, See answer 2 in WS RS Call P4. This has been the official interpretation for many years. The issue with writing a 'must be behind the boat that was fouled is that the penalty then depends on the boat handling and rig choice of the boat fouled. It would be better to foul an expert sailor as he would recover quicker, and not to foul the boat that has taken the risk to stay in A rig when everyone else is in B rig (as they are likely to stay in irons for much longer. : Answer 2 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.

It was with much relief that I learnt that World Sailing Racing Rules Committee had rejected the submissions from the Croatian Sailing Federation. It is to be hoped that the intense lobbying, by IRSA, by national radio sailing organisations and by some race officials who know radio sailing, helped WS RRC to reach this decision. Certainly, the replies I received from my contacts within RRC were very positive. Personally I fully support the proposal that was accepted: E6.6 Redress Rule 62.1(b) is changed to: (b) injury, physical damage or becoming disabled because of the action of (1) a boat that was breaking a rule of Part 2 and took the an appropriate penalty or was penalised, or (2) a vessel not racing that was required to keep clear or is determined to be at fault under the IRPCAS or a government right-of-way rule; Rule 62.1 is changed to add: (e) external radio interference acknowledged by the race committee, To be very clear this proposal changes RRS 62.1 ONLY when Appendix E applies. There is no suggestion that there will be any change in the main body of the rules. It makes RRS 62.1(b) easier to read, allows for redress as a result of vessels not involved in radio sailing (not an issue for small pond sailors but a real issue when racing on navigable waterways). It also makes provision for radio interference. The other lesson learnt from this episode is that we cannot assume that all radio sailors agree with and accept some of the fundamental elements of how our sport is run. I would suggest that it is time to review many of our practices, to reaffirm our wish to maintain many of the key points, change anything that needs changing so that we do not have to go through this again.

Here are the reccomendations that IRSA has transmitted to World Sailing. EC-submission-summary jgb-2 GD 1.docx

Rule E4.3 makes no mention of the boat that was infringed against. The question that needs to be answered is: After taking a penalty is the boat in a better position in the race than if she has not broken the rule (see WS Radio Sailing Call P4). So, for example, a boat on port tack that would have been in, say 5th place, if she dipped behind a starboard tack boat, but instead choses to tack and fouls the boat on starboard. After taking a penalty, the port tack boat should be in 5th or worse.

The national radio association can inform their WS MNA and any members of WS RRC they may know.

This proposal does no only remove observers from umpired racing but also from all radio sailing. If you wish to use observers then you will have to write rules for each event. In addition it removes the requirement for umpires to be in the control area, and also allows witnesses to be outside the control area, and witnesses may be competitors not racing in the heat. This means that at some events competitors could be more that 70m from the incident while umpires sit in a boat at the windward mark, or your competitors/witness sit on a deckchair on the bank, viewing the incident from a few metres. Another point is the allegation that observers obviously have a conflict of interest, and are not disinterested sources of information.

Or a massive training programe for umpires and a significant raise in the cost of running an event!Not the best way to encourage grassroots sailing.

WS Sailing already have rules for Umpired Radio Sailing based on the rules developed by IJs and radio sailors over the years. These rules include observers, hails of contact and one-turn voluntary/two turn umpire given penalties and are intended to change the game as little as possible. These proposals,however, seek to modify these rules in several ways and make them the default rules for radio sailing. Any event that does not want to use umpires and use observers will be required to write into the NoR a significant number of rule changes.

The proposals on observing/umpiring seem to be based on: - a belief that an observer cannot be disinterested and has an obvious conflict of interest - to extend the current situation in Croatia (a small number of regattas all umpired with no observers) to the rest of the world - to remove the one -turn voluntary, two turn umpire given, penalty difference. This means that umpires will be empowered to penalise with out warning after contact. This despite previous experience that if penalty given by umpire is the same, most competitors will wait for the umpire call. - allow umpires to roam freely on the bank or on the water, outside the control area. I would argue that these proposals are a major game-changer. They undo over 40 years of development of rules and practices that actively involve competitors in implementing the basic principle of sportsmanship that competitors follow and enforce the rules. These proposal seek to replace not reinforce self policing.

Could we not just apply the rule, please! 'The starting and finishing lines shall be between the course sides of the starting and finishing marks'. If the mark is round then the course side is the point furthest on the course side. The start/finish line is between these points on each mark. The correct angle to the wind for the start line is the angle at which competitors decide to spread themselves evenly along the line, and there is no perceived advantage at one end leading to bunching. Competitors may have a very different appreciation of the line compared to the race officer.

At many world or continental championships, and other international events, the start line is laid to windward of the gate (and sometimes to leeward to increase the length of the beat. The finish line is set to leeward of the windward gate, or may be between two windward marks. This allows for a long first beat and two full beats. It also means that boats for the next beats can be launched to leeward of the course as soon as the last boats in the current heat are progressing up the beat.

There are a number of submissions to World Sailing regarding Appendix E. These can be found at: https://www.sailing.org/inside-world-sailing/organisation/governance/conferences/2023-world-sailing-annual-conference/2023-world-sailing-annual-conference-submission-papers/ In particular submissions: 056-23 to 063-23 These submissions include: - deleting observers and hails for contact from the rule book and replacing these rules by simplified rules for umpiring - allowing umpires to roam freely and not be restricted to remaining with competitors in the control area - allowing umpires to penalise directly for contact between boats or between an boat and a mark - removing in umpired racing the difference between a one-turn voluntary penalty and a two-turn umpire given penalty - removing from the rule book obligatory protection for long radio aerials, and redress for radio interference. These submissions were presented by the Croatian Sailing Federation. Neither IRSA nor IRSA classes were consulted before these submissions were made. I would be very interested to hear your reactions.

Darin, I hope that your questions have been answered. The interpretation took a lot of work. Gordon

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

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

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

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

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!)

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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