David Lapes

There was a very restricted control area, where not all skippers got a front row seat - let alone a free view of their boat. I agree that experience may lead to different choices. I also agree that being theoretically ROW does not imply that R14 exonerates you from risk of disadvantage. Ducking into a blind spot below the line carries considerable risk.

Well first you are bobbing along a start line sails flapping and minding your own business as best you can when you can't actually see your boat. Then without any intervention your boat appears and you try to control your boat and it's clear for a while (approx 20 sec) that the boats are entangled. Nobody could see from the restricted control area how the contact started. It was clear which boat was to windward as they processed up the course. After gentle persuasion the boats parted and I (to leeward) gybes back towards the line and he tacked back. Anything else is supposition. Temporarily 'disabled' due to an infringement by no action of your own is a redressable event. Entanglement is always a mystery, what catches on what and the exacto nature of the contract and who might have anticipated what.

During my last regatta I was awarded average points for being dragged OCS by a boat to that windward of me. Both of us were unable to see our boats until they bobbed into view 10 sec too early. I argued that the only facts of which we were certain - where he was windward and that we were locked together temporarily. I did not seek his punishment only my redress. We both restarted and I stated that he had taken a penalty and therefore should not be DSQ, although I am not certain that was it true - it was more to focus on the issue of my redress not the cause of the incident.

Why is it inappropriate to comment on a decision if it seems wrong - you may be in a different position from the average sailor. A vow of silence or reputation management is a dangerous place. I am neither party so I will leave that alone. I think the general point is important. The appeals process is onerous especially if the race was inconsequential. It would be helpful to understand the decision process.

Two boats in fitful wind (very thermic). In the top 3rd of the 2nd beat (2 and a bit legs to go). A-fleet The boats become becalmed and make light but obvious contact - Frank claims that despite multiple changes of tack with no perceptible change of heading Ned's contact was an infringement. Ned gets moving completes a penalty turn and resumes racing; over the course of the next two legs Ned sails a blinder and gains 10 places. Frank however throws his toys out of the pram and after regaining way and completeing the race is 10 places below his infringer. Frank seeks redress for the foul by Ned and the committee reason that Ned's turn was admission of fault and therefore appealed to Ned to retire or be lobbed. And, they awarded NED's place to FRAnk. This appears to be a misapplication of the redress or unfair advantage rules. In some guidance an "alternative penalty" is advised as a precaution in order to protect against DSQ, not as implicit admission of fault. My view about 'Right of Way' assertion is that it should come with a strong caveat emptor warning - and the penalty for the Right-of-Way boat that infringes R14 is jeopardy.

There is a penalty for Leeward boat and that is the jeopardy of a potential rafting with the windward boat. The right of way doesn't give immunity, only priority. As soon as contact occurs and for as long as it continues you're just as screwed as they are.

I think that certainty is absent in most cases and therefore the evidence of advantage is tenuous and intangible. Rule 2 might be applied if the infringement is particularly cheeky. If it is just poor judgement or bad control; or worse still an untimely windshift... Then an apology and a spin is in order. I do think that we need to count fouls and cynical fouls throughout an event. Yellow cards may require turns for breach of rule 2.

I think the problem of anticipation and the rules not requiring it. Sailors get themselves in to trouble by not anticipating situations and then complaining when they end up jammed gunwale to gunwale with another innocent party. The disadvantage is not caused by the boat N+1 across but by the two boats hoping that the inevitable might not happen and demanding that the law must set it right. In my view the rules are there to forewarn us of pitfalls so that we can set ourselves up to sail blithely past the chaos. In this case C B and A would be well advised to give P space and make him do a turn as we sail by. 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. I think rule 2 probably should be used more often. I think a more realistic case is a pre-existing raft at a B-fleet windward mark and 'Poacher' chances his arm up the inside of the raft. A 50:50 chance of getting both mirrors through or tapping one or other, a swift spin is worth the chance. Then the observers miss it all - no call no foul. As Lester says it's a good idea looking for a decent rule.

To me the rules here are crystal clear - but many others assume some other intention and reading of the rule. Is there a source that explains the intention of the rule and case(s) where it may be applied correctly.

Colour Vision should be considered - Red and Green are not universally good contrast for those with 'Colour Blindness'

Anyone used spray paint?

Hi Steve do you still have the STL files. I'm trying to print some cradles for a plastic tubed version and having trouble with scaling the US versions Thanks David