Charles Legg

I am very grateful to John for going through the new rules so rapidly and thoroughly. It's hard enough to keep up at the best of times. According to John, 'Appendix E Changes for RC sailing Various rules are reworded for style without change to meaning', but that is certainly not the case with respect of Rule E3.9 where the meaning has been changed completely. The 2017-2020 rule states: E3.9 Disabled Competitors To enable a disabled competitor to compete on equal terms, the race committee shall make as fair an arrangement as possible. Whereas the 2021-2024 rule states: E3.9 Disabled Competitors The race committee may make or permit reasonable arrangements to assist disabled competitors to compete on as equal terms as possible. A boat or the competitor controlling her that receives any such assistance, including help from a support person, does not break rule 41. In the 2017 rules the reuirment to make fair arrangements is mandatory, as indicated by the word 'shall', while in the 2021 rules there is no requirement, merely permission, as idicated by the word 'may'. Furthermore, the 2017 rule relates to 'fair' arrangement whereas the 2021 rule introduces the weasel word 'reasonable'. Ask any disabled person and they will tell you that once any discretion is given about making adjustments for their disability then no action will be taken and the new rule introduces discretion in two forms, in the use of the word 'may' and the word 'reasonable'. These changes mean that whether or not disabled sailors can compete on equal terms is entirely in the gift of race committees who, if my experience is anything to go by, will always exercise that discretion in favour of the majority of competitors who are able bodied. One of the problems with rules that allow discretion it tends to be the courts that decide whether it has been exercised reasonably. Charles Legg

John and Darin, My thanks to both of you for helping me clarify the issues around Rule E3.9. Three things emerge from your comments. The first is that the rule only applies once competitors have reached the pond side so it doesn’t place a burden on clubs to improve their facilities for disabled members, although that burden might be imposed by local legislation such as the UK Equality Act 2010. The second is that, even when assistance to disabled sailors was discretionary rather than mandatory, clubs have gone out of their way to be helpful. The third is that I am not sure that the MYA and its affiliated clubs have given a lot of thought to the implications of discretionary help being turned into a mandatory rule, particularly a rule that, thanks to the phrase ‘make as fair an arrangement as possible’, embodies a lack of clarity unusual in the World Sailing rule book. Rule E3.9 is likely to make disabled sailors more assertive of their rights and be a potential source of conflict both within clubs and at open meetings so I was hoping that the MYA committee had noticed this rule change, had taken a view on what might constitute ‘fair’ arrangements and might be in a position to give guidance to clubs as to how best to implement it. Ideally they would consult disabled members during this process. In the absence of guidance I suspect that the issue will be solved by case law, which can get very messy and the process has the potential to disrupt the smooth running of events like open meetings, national and international championships. Charles Legg

John, I’m somewhat surprised by your response for two reasons. The first is that, when it comes to sailing organised through individual model yacht clubs the distinction between the club and the race committee is, as my lawyer friends would put it, a distinction without a difference. The second is that you say “The intent of E.9 is to encourage a level playing field - but it is not mandatory - ie there is no 'shall'.” Race committees do not exist in a vacuum but are appointed by and derive their powers from some other body which is ultimately responsible for their activities. In most instances they are made up of members of model yacht clubs, appointed by the members of those clubs and, in a well-managed club, operate under the direction of the club committee. The failure of a race committee to conduct racing according to the current RRS must ultimately be viewed as a failure of the responsible body, usually the club, to supervise the race committee it has appointed, hence my initial question. On the issue of whether Rule E3.9 is mandatory, Rule E3.9 includes the phrase ‘the race committee shall make’ (my italics) which, given that the rules elsewhere use the word ‘may’ looks like the actions required under Rule E3.9 are mandatory rather than discretionary. Let me turn to your point about what clubs might be expected to do. The rule makes no mention of ‘easy access’ only ‘as fair an arrangement as possible’, which rules out significant structural changes to a pond or pond-side facilities. Then again, there cannot be many model yacht clubs where the pond-side can only be reached via terrain so rough that it cannot be traversed by a modern wheelchair, so structural alterations are unlikely to be an issue in most instances. Finally, your point about ‘Special Olympics’ is a red herring when it comes to radio sailing since the needs of disabled sailors can be accommodated through Rule E3.9 without the need for specially adapted boats or special events. As both you and Darin Ballington have pointed out, most disabled competitors can be accommodated by operating a restricted control area and stopping other competitors walking in front of them and it is heartening to learn that such arrangements have been made without the prod of Rule E3.9. However, we are still left with the question of what attitude the MYA might take to clubs that do not ensure that their race committees implement Rule E3.9. Charles Legg

Darin, Thank you for your very helpful reply. I take it that by ‘restrictions to the control area’ you mean that able-bodied competitors are limited in how far they can move so that they do not have a significant advantage over the wheelchair user, and that by ‘some monitoring has been in place as skippers get involved in the racing’ you mean that someone has to remind able-bodied skippers not to wander outside of this unusually restricted control area? My question about the attitude of the MYA stems from the fact that support for disabled skippers seems to have gone from being discretionary to being mandatory under the latest RRS and I was wondering whether the MYA had done anything to make clubs aware of this fact. Given that making provision for disabled skippers is mandatory I was wondering whether there were any consequences for clubs that operate outside World Sailing rules? Charles Legg

John Ball has provided an excellent account of the World Sailing RRS for 2017 to 2020, which has led to some interesting discussions in this forum, but there has been little discussion of rule E3.9 in Appendix E: ‘E3.9 Disabled Competitors To enable a disabled competitor to compete on equal terms, the race committee shall make as fair an arrangement as possible.’ The only exception lies in John’s commentary on the rules in which he points out that ‘Definitions now include one for "support person". This will help clarify the role for a helper for a skipper with a disability.’ I have three questions about Rule E3.9: 1) do any clubs have experience of implementing this rule; 2) if clubs have experience of implementing the rule, what arrangements have they made; 3) what is the attitude of the MYA to clubs that have disabled members that do not seek to make such arrangements?

Dave, Once people start patronising people rather than actually responding to their concerns, which in my case related to the public face of our clubs, there is only one way these discussions go on-line which is very personal and very nasty. I guess that's the way the world of model yachting works and I will have to live with it. Out, Charles

As a newbie to the sport I am puzzled by the coyness (bordering on dishonesty) of clubs about their weed problems. This year I was a member of two shallow water clubs, which I shall not name to preserve their dignity, both of which are known to experience weed problems. One of them announced a Summer sailing schedule for the weed period but then failed to announce that their weed was so severe that racing had to be abandoned all together and could only be resumed properly at the end of September. The other published a sailing schedule at the beginning of the year and maintained that schedule throughout the Summer despite their sailing water being so severely affected by weed that only shallow keeled boats could be safely sailed. Why can't clubs be honest about their weed problems, publicise when they have weed that interferes with sailing, and indicate what alternatives are available to members and, more importantly, potential members? Given that weed is an inevitable feature of shallow water ponds and is likely to appear and disappear at about the same time every year, give or take a week or so, why on earth do clubs insist on publishing Summer sailing schedules that they have little chance of maintaining? Insiders to the sport know all about this and take it in their stride but it really puts off newcomers, particularly when they turn up at ponds on bright Summer Sunday mornings, as invited on club websites, to see nothing but swans and ducks.