Two boats hovering below the start line on a Black Flag start

Windward boat (W) drifts down onto Leeward boat (L) and contact made

L shouts protest

The two boats remain in contact but sail slowly across the line whilst still in contact before the start signal

RO callls both L and W OCS

Can L still protest W and if successful can the Protest Committee over turn the DSQ and award redress or does the DSQ stand?

Just my opinion.

I think the correct penalty for W and for L is BFD.

I don't see any grounds for a PC to reverse the BFD for the leeward boat. There may be a case for a boat that was forced over early by another boat that was breaking a rule, but in this example L was ROW.

Even if a PC found some grounds to change the decision for L (who would still have to comeback and restart or she is OCS and has not sailed the course), there are a list of grounds for redress, and non seem to apply here.

If two boats are just rafted together, they are not entangled as they can sail apart just by the actions of wind, water, sails and rudder ( a parallel example is a dinghy that has tipped over and may self-right - she is not considered disabled).

John

 

Both L and W receive a BFD penalty. 

My reading of the RRS suggests that L can protest W.  Because W was obliged to immediately leave the racing area, taking a penalty turn was not an option.  If L is sufficiently aggrieved, she can bring a protest and it would be up to the protest committee to decide if indeed W broke a rule.  However, W already has a BFD.  The protest committee could impose a DSQ, and the only significance of a DSQ as compared to a BFD is that it lies one position lower in the division of the fleet for the next heat under HMS..

I do not think L can request redress under RRS 62.  The list of grounds for redress are given in 62.1, and 62.1(d), the only likely possibility, applies only if the boat at fault was penalised under RRS 2 and not under any other rule, such as RRS 11 which makes W the give-way boat.

John reminds us that there are further grounds for redress given in RRS E6.6 (radio interference, being disabled).  Interestingly, there is also a ground for redress given in HMS 1.8, which is that a boat may be given a changed finishing place in addition to a changed score for an incident on the last leg.

I spotted this, long after the original conversation, and as I was a bit puzzled by the conclusions expressed so far and to try and clarify my mind asked an international judge of my acquaintance if he would comment.

--------------------------

His reply was:-

Both boats are called BFD and must leave the course area immediately (E3.7).

"L" can claim for redress and there must therefore be a hearing.

The PC will need to establish if L was disabled (E6.6) and fulfilled the requirements of 62.1.

With a BFD you have to leave the race course, not re-crossing the line and continuing and then seeking redress as was possibly being suggested.

I responded saying:-

Sorry - I still don't understand.

I understand that both must leave the race course and initially suffer.

62.1(d) seems to suggest that redress for L being stitched up with no disablement may be good reason to seek (and potentially be given) redress.

BUT THEN

62.1(b) seems to suggest that redress can ONLY be considered if disablement takes place.

I then went on to say, assuming that L claims for redress what is the practical difference in points loss (assuming he is awarded redress of some sort) between him being disabled and him not?

Presumably being not permitted to join in that heat or race, any 'disablement' has little effect and both are pro-tem disqualified from that heat (if HMS) or race

His reply to that further query was:-

Both boats are BFD, but if there was contact W broke rule 11 and 14 and L broke 14 as well.

So depending on the PC penalties could be given to both boats on top of the BFD and more likely to W.

So if I can remember Appendix E gives an alternative of taking a one turn penalty immediately after the start of the next heat after relegation.

Therefore if the fault was purely down to W then a difference in penalties has been established by taking this penalty.

I think that redress cannot be given to L as the ‘through no fault of your own’ might be hard to justify unless a third boat was involved.

Average points for that race is the only alternative but the demotion would still stand for the next heat.

---------------------------

Nothing’s ever simple is it!

Cheers

Chris

 

Hi Chris,

Looking over this thread again, I see both boats given BFD without a hearing. They must leave the course immediately.

R 43 Exoneration - nothing applies, so no exoneration for leeward.

I cannot see grounds for the leeward boat to be granted redress.

Any boat may request redress and E6.6(f) allows 'disabled'. See definition of Disabled.

I do not believe that rafted together qualified as disabled as the boats can sail apart by the action of wind, water, sail trim and rudder.

John
 

Hi John

I did say nothing was ever simple!

Cheers

Chris

 

Hi Chris,

One item needs exploring and I will post it on the RRS forum and report back.

So the first question is given that windward drifted into leeward, breaking R 11, and before they could separate, they both drifted over the start line, breaking R30.4 which was in effect; was leeward compelled to break R30.4? Leeward could have avoided being over early if W had not drifted into her.

The second question is does R 43.1(a) apply? And if yes, then 43.2 would apply and exonerate Leeward. But to get a finish position, and as redress is not available here, L would have to protest W,  ignore the Black Flag call, and come back and start correctly and sail the course. Can Leeward do that?

John

43.1 (a) When as a consequence of breaking a rule a boat has compelled
another boat to break a rule, the other boat is exonerated for her
breach.

43.2 A boat exonerated for breaking a rule need not take a penalty and shall
not be penalized for breaking that rule.

 

One of the judges on the RRS forum pointed me to Case 140.

Case 140 allows that a boat that was forced to break a rule (even a Black Flag 30.4) by another boat that broke a rule is exonerated and may be scored with her finish position provided that she went back and started correctly and sailed the course.

John

Here is a definitive answer - Thanks Gordon,

 Facts Found:

In a race sailed under Appendix E, Radio Sailing Rules, the race committee signalled that rule 30.4, Black Flag Rule applied.

W was overlapped to windward of L. Both boats were moving forward slowly with sails flogging.

W closed the gap with L and there was contact between the port side of W and the starboard side of L. The boats were not entangled but continued to sail forward slowly. L was unable to bear away.

Before the starting signal both boats were on the course side of the line.

The race committee informed both boats that they had broken rule 30.4.;

After the boats separate, L returns to the pre-start side of the starting line, crosses the start line and sails the course.

L protests W and claims that she is exonerated under rule 43.1.

 

Conclusions

W to windward failed to keep clear of L to leeward, and broke RRS 11.

In a start under RRS 30.4 a part of the hulls of both W and L were in the triangle formed by the ends of the starting line and the windward mark during the last minute before the starting signal. W and L broke RRS 30.4.

Since L was compelled to break RRS 30.4 as a consequence of Y breaking RRS 11, she is exonerated under RRS 43.1(a) for this breach.

When informed by the race committee that she had broken RRS 30.4 L did not immediately leave the course area and broke RRS E3.7.

Decision

W is disqualified for breaking rule 11.

L is exonerated under RRS 43.1(a). for breaking rule 30.4.

L is disqualified for breaking RRS E3.7.

 

Comment

If L had left the course area immediately after being informed that she had broken rule 30.4 the conclusion would be different (see Question 3 of WS Case 140:

The race committee made no improper action in informing L that she had broken RRS 30.4. There are no grounds for redress under RRS 62.1(a).

Since L is exonerated under RRS 43.1(a) the race committee is required to change her score from BFD to DNS.

Thank you for reply, racing rules certainly keep the brain cells active!!

The RRS ensure victims are protected and perpetrators are penalized, except in this situation.  It would be interesting to consider a rule change or addition for Appendix E which deals with this anomaly.

The issue seems to centre on the inability of a boat to receive due exoneration under 43.1(a), or due redress under 62, when the RC exercises E3.7.

Perhaps an additional clause to extend redress under E6.6 would do the trick, such as:

(g) an action of another boat that resulted in a penalty under Part 2 which required the boat to leave the course area under E3.7.

Another possibility would be to modify E3.7 itself to allow a boat to claim exoneration and continue racing subject to a mandatory redress hearing(*) after finishing, such as:

E3.7 When the race committee informs a boat that she has broken rule 30.3 or 30.4, the boat shall immediately leave the course area unless she claims exoneration under 43.1(a) in which case a redress hearing shall consider the claim after the heat or race.

* 'Redress' instead of 'protest' to avoid conflict with E6.1.

 

This is probably a very rare scenario, and getting a rule change in the RRS is a long process, but you can deal with it in the short term by using your NOR/SI to modify E3.7, perhaps to say that the RC will notify the involved boats, and drop the 'leave the course' phrase.

That leaves the responsibility of the skippers to know what to do when hailed.

John

 

So, the moral of this story must be,  on a Black Flag start rule (30.4)  keep away form the line & other boats for your own safety!!"  

Many years ago I had some clown sail up my chuf on the black flag start that pushed me over.

I was out the race, he did a penalty, you can guess the rest.

Not as rare as might be thought.  A simple temporary solution is indeed for the SIs to just delete E3.7 entirely, the RC notification is already built into 30.3 and 30.4.  E3.7 requires a 30.3 or 30.4 DSQ or BFD boat to leave the course area, because otherwise there is no obligation for it to do so.  There is nothing for a radio sailing skipper "to know what to do when hailed", because there is no RRS rule which specifies what to do, as far as I know, apart from E3.7.

Another simple SI temporary solution would be to delete the first clause of E3.8(a)(*), 30.3, and 30.4 and to require the RC to use only 30.2, repeatedly as may be necessary, to deal with multiple general recalls.  I use only 30.2 when acting as the Race Officer and find it both remarkably effective and very popular.

E3.7 was introduced into the RRS starting in 2013.  It came about, IIRC, when a competitor at a world championship materially affected the final results by getting in the way of one of the front runners to the, ah, benefit of a fellow countryman of the competitor.

The fact remains that E3.7 introduces an anomaly that could do with being fixed (as does the penultimate sentence of 30.4 if it is interpreted in line with Case 140).  Answer 1 in Case 140 makes it clear that it is entirely proper for a boat to be exonerated for being in the windward triangle before the start if she was forced into it.  The lack of a penalty, and the availability of redress, should be the general outcome for both questions 2 and 3 of Case 140, and for the E3.7 situation we are discussing.

(*) There is no reason for E3.8(a) to delete 30.2.

I have to disagree.  I think that allowing a boat to break the rules on the grounds that she may (or may not!) have been fouled is a bad precedent to set.  It would be rather inviting anyone over the line on a black flag start to yell protest at some random boat and then keep sailing, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the black flag rule (which after all is only meant to be used after several generals).  I don't believe that a competitor has the right to prejudge the outcome of a protest and take action on the assumption that they have won it.  I think the correct course of action is for all boats over the line to leave the race area.  If it is subsequently  shown that a competitor was illegally forced over the line then the race committee can award redress (e.g. average points).  This is no different to being hit and damaged and having to retire when not at fault.

11 hours ago, Derek Priestley said:

So, the moral of this story must be,  on a Black Flag start rule (30.4)  keep away form the line & other boats for your own safety!!"  

I’m with Derek on this one, no need to write anymore rules. 30.4 should be used as a last resort and everyone should be aware of the consequences and keep clear of others. In recent times lazy race teams have started to use 30.4 too eagerly and we should be less keen to use it.

Hi John949,

Unfortunately redress is not available in the given 'facts' above. So the unfortunate skipper, if they get off the course as required by E3.7, is to be scored a DNS if the PC finds the boat was forced to break a rule and acts correctly in the hearing.

There is a mismatch between the intent of 43.1(a) and the application of  E3.7.

The comparison to big boats, is that there is no designated process to advise the skipper(s) involved for a breach of 30.3 and 30.4. Those rules tell the RC how to score the boats involved. There is a 'practice' to advise those boats by radio, or by displaying their numbers at the first mark, and in 30.4, a process to notify them in the event of a general recall. However in RC, as we do not use big boat signals, we use audibles.

E3.7 was written to advise the affected boat(s). However it goes further than R29 (how to recall) and 30.3 and 30.4 by providing a direction for the boat(s) to leave the course - and this removes the option for a fouled boat to use 43.1(a).

I plan to discuss this issue with the IRSA Racing Rules Committee.

John

 

Every so often I think I should take up radio sailing but I am going to bookmark this thread as a reminder of why I should just stick to vane racing.

Gareth Jones

Edited September 15, 20223 yr by Gareth

Gareth, this is high end stuff that happens once every blue moon but could decide the outcome of a Worlds.

Vane sailing can also get tetchy as happened at this years A Nationals.

At the end of the day it is about enjoying your sailing, making new friendships, meeting old friends.

Both disciplines of the sport have given me lifelong friends.

Graham, it was a slightly tongue in cheek response.  I am not trying to decry the efforts of people to explain the rules.  It's just that to an outsider, there looks to be an awful lot of rules, some quite complicated and not easy to understand.  I think that provided clubs introduce beginners in a helpful; constructive way its probably fine.  However someone with a know it all bossy attitude could easily put newcomers off.

Gareth

John B,

Don't understand, why is redress not available under E 6.1b?

Hi John949

E6.1(b) gives any boat the right to request redress - however, redress may only be awarded by a PC for items in the redress list which is in R62.1 plus the items added by E6.6.

The skipper requesting redress has to state the grounds for redress. Which item in R62.1 or E6.6 fits?

The request for redress would be denied as the facts of the incident matches none of the listed items.

John

Another moral. 

As Race Officer, be patient, don't resort to 30.4 too early! Persist with 30.1 if you can.

 

MYA  IOM Nationals 2021  Fleetwood, 3 days racing,   58 general recalls mainly A & B Heats,   1 Black Flag start!!