Could you not argue that you were disabled (E6.6(f)) because you couldn't steer away from the line?  The rule doesn't say that the disability has to be permanent.

Both Darin and Derek are spot on regarding the use of 30.4 Black Flag.

There are 2 obvious reasons I see for this:

1. The scoring penalty for an OCS under 30.4 is ridiculously harsh under HMS in that it is the entire fleet +1. This needs to be modified to be heat +1.

For Example - A skipper breaks the line by a a small margin while keeping clean of all other boats and receives an entire fleet +1 score (that’s 77 points in a 76 boat entry)

now compare the above to the same skipper reaching falling down and bashing across the the fleet effecting the starts of many in keeping themselves from breaking the line. This skipper is not black flagged and after completing turns for infringements can continue racing the course. Any risk of a rule 2 protest can be waved away with a simple claim of losing sight of their boat.
The penalty for the above…Heat +1 (e.g. A heat 21 points in a 20 boat fleet)

Do your best, respect your fleet and get 77points, or bash off the fleet rudely and only cop 21 points in the worst case. Get it fractionally wrong a couple of times and you are the bottom of the pile. Smash and bash around and you are placed higher. Not really promoting good sailing I’m afraid.

2. 30.4 Black Flag starts promote lottery racing (given the weight of penalty)

Any skipper under a normal start knows how important getting away cleanly is. From venue to venue this can be tricky and sometimes near impossible for 20 odd skippers standing on a bank and trying to get a clear sight on their boat. It can be equally as hard for the race team to get a good look at the line. That’s just the nature of what we do that makes things so much harder than being sat on our boats with no end of transits and latest gadgetry that does it all for us with time on distance read outs and so on.

We all do our best but realise we have to get some racing in. 30.1 Around the ends is the best for this and worked for however many years previous. All can push, but know if they get it slightly wrong they are not disqualified with the above penalty. Go to 30.4 and the game changes. Those with any chance of doing well will mostly be over conservative, yet those that have little to risk and gamble will do so. There are no end of examples in events where 30.4 black flag start heats are won and placed by boats not in the event running and were happy to have a gamble.

I believe this all gets back to what we really want from an event. For me personally it’s a chance to race fairly against my fellow competitors. If that means getting say 12 good races with nobody unfairly punished at an event over 20 ‘Micky Mouse’ races then that is my preference. We all accept that some of our venues and conditions make it tough for all and that a low number of races can happen at anytime in any place. What we can avoid though, is trying to overcome that by imposing further penalties on those that travel to events in a rush to get racing done with 30.4.

Leave 30.4 for the big boat world and their officials that like to feel important😉

Cheers

Brad
 

 

On 17/09/2022 at 01:23, John949 said:

Could you not argue that you were disabled (E6.6(f)) because you couldn't steer away from the line?  The rule doesn't say that the disability has to be permanent.

Hi John949,

I have had this discussion with International Judges and the opinion is that two boats just rafted together are not disabled as they can sail free by the action of water, wind, sail trim and rudder. A similar situation could occur at a mark rounding, where a boat breaking some part of R18 causes several boats to raft up.

The analogy they give is to consider a dinghy that has capsized avoiding a keep clear boat. That dinghy is not eligible for redress, as it can self-right and continue in the race.

So it is considered different from 'disabled' such as being entangled or where something broke.

World Sailing, Case 135 is worth reading - in that case, a dinghy that capsized may only get redress if something broke or there was injury. The absence of comment that redress should be available just because of the capsize is significant.

John

The OPs argument is that he was unable to stay on the right side of the line because of the fouling boat being in contact with him.  Yes they can eventually get free from each other but not before the rule breach occurs, so I would say he was disabled (or even entangled!) at the time the rule breach occurred i.e. unable to steer in the direction he wants to due to the fouling boat.  I don't think the capsize case is relevant because the avoiding boat capsized by itself I.e. it was their fault they were disabled.  Same would go for a broach - you can't claim redress or exoneration in a broach because it was your fault you broached.

Anyway, fun though this discussion is, I'm not going to argue with a panel of international judges, so maybe it's time for me to give in, although I still think redress is a better solution than encouraging people to flout the rules on the possibility that they might be exonerated.