Appendix E already changes the Racing Rules of Sailing. Other branches of sailing that have their own Appendix do change  RRS, in order to make the game possible or better, or to adapt to the particularities of the boats/boards.

Examples include the size of the zone, the concept of a disabled boat, multiple penalty turns instead of retiring, no course changes, observers...

Another change is with starting penalties: Appendix E deletes the Z flag penalty. This leaves the I flag (round the ends and the U and Black flag. These give tools to the Race Committee to deal with fleets that do not manage to start correctly. These tools are to be manipulated carefully.

The I flag RRS 30.1, has fallen out of favour, as it is felt that it encourage boats to avoid the middle of the line, in effect making the problem worse.

The U flag has become the standard starting penalty in big dinghy fleets.

IRSA's policy on the use of starting penalties is the same as World Sailing - they should be used only when the RC is certain that the recall was not due to a poorly set line or a RC generated issue.

In the event the start has been postponed, or a General Recall has been caused by the length or angle of the starting line, the course management team will adjust the starting line and make another attempt using the same preparatory signal. 
If the course management team is satisfied that a General Recall was not the result of the length or angle of the starting line or a course management team action, it will signal the use of a rule 30 starting penalty (I flag, U or black flag) for each subsequent attempt to start the heat 
An important principle to be followed by the course management team is that rule 30 starting penalties will only be used when general recalls are caused by the boats themselves, or rapid oscillations of the wind, and not by actions of the course management team. 

The penalty for being UFD and BFD under HMS may seem severe: one more point than the last boat in the lowest heat would have scored if all the boats competing in the event had finished correctly.

HMS is supposed to reproduce as far as possible a race sun in a single fleet. In a dinghy/keelboat event that is the penalty for being disqualified, including not only UFD, BFD  but also OCS.

However, this is a rule that could be changed under HMS.

 

 

I agree with many points made by Brad. The spirit of cooperation between ROs and umpires has degraded over the years.

Feedback from Gladstone from an umpire:

Gladstone had a small control area leg to observe the start and then the boats sailed mostly directly away from the viewing platform. The windward marks were consistently well over 100 metres away, but once were moved back on my request to 92 metres. However, for the next heat they were moved back to the original distance by the race officer. This resulted in only seeing the transom of port tack boats sailing into the windward mark and then losing the offending boat in the resulting melee. Right from the very first meeting I emphasised the success at previous championships of the windward gate in reducing the incidents at the windward mark. I continued over the first three days to reinforce this, but it was not until the after racing competitors meeting on the third day that it was finally introduced. When the marks were well laid it considerably reduced incidents and could have led to the marks being brought closer, but they were not.

The starting lines were laid with a constant biais to the starboard end on lines that were almost at right angles to the control area making it difficult to identify incidents at the overcrowded far end. This was brought up at the after racing countries meeting day after day but the race team only attended the first of these and little changed.

And from an organiser:

I heard no comments from competitors regarding the marks being too far away at all.

On two occasions, I was on the platform when Scott was setting the course for racing. On both occasions he spoke with the skippers who were practicing, asking their opinion on the distance of the marks. 

One time, the skippers said they were too far, and he immediately bought them back until skippers said they were fine.

At no time during the skippers end of day meeting was the issue raised either.

So from a sailing perspective, I felt the courses were not too distant at all. 

The top mark issues were helped by the gate, but the origin of the problem was the disrespect by many skippers of the racing rules, not the distance.

The reason for the use of the boat was not to identify infringements, but to attempt to identify sail numbers promptly for communication to the skipper.

The Jury (other than the Chair ) were inexperienced in radio sailing. They could have identified boats by hull colour, deck patch colour, sail markings, location on the course or movement at the time ( the boat gybing now) to alert the skippers prior to viewing the sail number but they were not doing that.

A couple of the Judges were a complete waste of money. (two) didn't open their mouth all week. (One) asked me how I could tell which gybe the boats were on. 

(redacted to ensure no untoward reference to specific persons)

Reading these two reports one questions whether they were at the same event.

The compromise, at this event, was that a RC crew at the windward mark would identify boats that had been hailed by an umpire. They were not always available.

We shall see what happens in Croatia. At the last major event sailed there, marks were a long distance from the control area and, in the afternoon, the windward mark was straight into the sun.

I would suggest that there are only 2 ways to resolve this issue:

- set courses within a comfortable distance from the control area

- allow umpires to leave the control area to observe racing. For logistical reasons this would almost certainly mean that the dialogue between umpires and competitors would not be possible. No hails of contact, no hails of protest and no voluntary penalties. Instead the officials would become referees, penalising every infringement that they see. I am not convinced that radio sailors would welcome this development.

 

22 hours ago, Gordon W Davies said:

Ian wrote: 

But in RC it would seem that being on the port lay line to round the windward mark and accepting the penalty  after boat and maybe mark contact is worth a single penalty turn. It seems wrong that a boat having taken a penalty may be in front of the boat who joined the line of starboard tackers who avoided collision.

RRS E4.3 states that a boat may take a 1-turn penalty at the tie of the incident. However:

 RRS E4.3(b) if the boat gained an advantage in the heat or race by her breach depite taking her penalty, her penalty shall be additional One-Turn penalties until her advantage is lost.

RS Call P4 states:

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.

RS Call B2 gives an example:

A boat, P, tacks inside the zone to leeward of 3 boats on starboard, all overlapped, A,B and C. As a result C on the outside is obliged to sail above close hauled to avoid the boats inside her.

P has broken  RRS 18.3. If P chooses to take a penalty then after taking the penalty she should be in no better a position than  if she had not taken a penalty. P would not have broken a rule if she had allowed the other boats to cross ahead, and then follow the m round the mark.

If A would have been first boat in the heat to round the mark, then P would have been 4th, if she had not broken  a rule. After taking penalties P should be in 4th place or worse, other wise she still has an advantage. Note that this means 4th place in the heat, irrespective of where AB and C are placed.

Thanks Gordon. So its not adding or changing rules- its ensuring the existing ones are sailed to 

Ian,

The basic principle IRSA has adopted is that radio sailing should use the same rules as the general set of rules, unless those rules do not work for radio sailing. Other forms of sailing have changed many more rules.

However, there are many rules that can be changed by the national authority or the event organiser. An example would be RRS 31 Touching a Mark. Appendix E does not change this rule. However, some classes, such as the RC Laser,  and some countries, Spain, for instance, do change this rule to allow boats to touch marks.  WS Radio Sailing Call discusses how mark-room applies when boats are allowed to boats to touch marks.

The change  to RRS 44 on taking a penalty allows a boat that has gained an advantage to continue taking turns rather than retire.

As discussed in this thread, I do not think that the rules governing boats arriving at the windward mark on port really work. There are ways of increasing the penalty, but it would be better to fid a way of preventing problems arising in the first place.

I also am becoming more convinced that RRS17, leeward boat not sailing above her proper course, is of little relevance in radio sailing.

2 hours ago, Gordon W Davies said:

 

I would suggest that there are only 2 ways to resolve this issue:

- set courses within a comfortable distance from the control area

- allow umpires to leave the control area to observe racing. For logistical reasons this would almost certainly mean that the dialogue between umpires and competitors would not be possible. No hails of contact, no hails of protest and no voluntary penalties. Instead the officials would become referees, penalising every infringement that they see. I am not convinced that radio sailors would welcome this development.

 

Hi Gordon,

Mindful that we are taking this thread to a more International umpired racing chat. I do feel though that our rules that flow down to club level and in between, are possibly too directed by umpired racing?

My thoughts on the lack of cooperation is that recent times have overlooked a very important factor, in that an event is for the skippers who pay for the privilege, and those ruling over them. Over bearing ROs or Umpires talking down to competitors lowers the tone and respect far more so at big events than before. Yes skippers may need reminding but on all points the respect has less for all parties.

What has not been mentioned is the two recent International events mentioned were sailed from raised locked platforms over skippers walking a portion or the length of the course. These just ask for trouble, add undue expense and take skippers out of what they would normally experience. I appreciate they make some venues more suitable than otherwise but a course that can be walked have always been far better events in my experience, elevated or not.

Whether it be umpires, or observers in a club race, noting down sail numbers repeatedly involved in or causing incidents that then leads to a gentle word from the RO or a Jury with warning or penalty, I feel will begin a tidy up for all levels. If we have no problem in harshly penalising the black flag skipper for a small error in judgement, then surely we can find a simple workable system for fairer sailing that lessens the ‘cowboy’ effect?

Brad

Edited March 30, 20251 yr by Brad Gibson

I agree with Brad.

The role of the major international events in the radio sailing community is important, but must not lead to us forgetting that this represents a tiny proportion of radio sailing activity.

These events are important because they provide a unique opportunity to talk to radio sailors from many countries, for sailors to encounter race officials. I always come away from such an event with a list of ideas and projects. However, our rules and our methods should be based on everyday racing not exceptional events. There is an issue in the WS process, in that the rule writers are predominately race officials who officiate at the elite end of the sport. We should be attentive to this. I would add, that is excatly why I initiated this conversation on this forum... to hear from the grassroot sailors.

Unfortunately, there has emerged in recent years a number of race officials who are influenced by the practices of other sailing disciplines. We have developed several unique features in radio sailing that these persons do not seem to fully understand or agree with. For instance the involvement of observers, and especially the involvement of observers who are competitors. Radio sailing umpiring has always been based on the reality that umpires will not see everything, so there has to be way of bringing an issue or incident to the protest committee. Some umpires have difficulty with this. Others have difficulty accepting that an umpire's decision should e based on the information available to the competitor, so the umpire is required to stay in the control area.

This difference of opinion lead to a crisis in which the Croatian Sailing Federation submitted (we presume with the cooperation of leading race officials) a submission that would have made umpired racing the default form of the sport, would have removed observers and allowed umpires to roam freely, on the bank or on the water.

I would add that I do not always approve of the attitude and behaviour of some of my colleagues. I have, on occasion, thought about reporting a race official to World Sailing. Perhaps we should consider doing this more frequently. Anyone concerned can make a complaint. WS does take such complaints seriously .

There are major issues with using raised platforms for the control area. The major issue is a lack of flexibility... the competitors are constrained in one area, and the race committee cannot move the race area to offer a sailable course. If the wind is not in exactly the right direction then the race committee will have difficulty setting a fair start line that competitors can see, and laying marks with the range of vision of the competitors.

I think that the idea of recording repeat offenders is an excellent idea. I think that this can be done without a rule change.

To finish with a rant: the class chooses the venue for its key events.   When choosing the venue the sailing side of the event should be given priority. We have to face the reality that there are venues that are not suitable for major events. There are others that are suitable, even excellent, as long as the full extent of the bank, on both sides of the racing area. For instance at one event, when the control area was on the shore line marks were distant, and the afternoon sun dazzled sailors and race officials. When the control area was moved to the pontoon on the other side of the racing area these problems disappeared.

The class and the club, as the organising authority,  have the right, to tell the race committee .how to run racing. The race committee has an obligation to run racing as directed by the club and class.

There are events at which the class has chosen an unsuitable venue, the race committee then compounds this by setting courses beyond the known limits of the human eye. The result is that neither competitors nor observers  nor  umpires can see what is going on. Calls are missed, or are made late. In these circumstances it can be demoralising, to say the least, to spend a week viewing distant dots on the ocean, trying to give some kind of service to competitors, and being criticised for declaring, in all honesty, that one cannot make a decision

“What has not been mentioned is the two recent International events mentioned were sailed from raised locked platforms over skippers walking a portion or the length of the course. These just ask for trouble, add undue expense and take skippers out of what they would normally experience. I appreciate they make some venues more suitable than otherwise but a course that can be walked have always been far better events in my experience, elevated or not.”

It would be interesting to know the reasoning behind these decisions. I may be wrong but I get the impression that some of reasoning may be due to the increased video coverage?

 

 

7 minutes ago, Gordon W Davies said:

I agree with Brad.

The role of the major international events in the radio sailing community is important, but must not lead to us forgetting that this represents a tiny proportion of radio sailing activity.

These events are important because they provide a unique opportunity to talk to radio sailors from many countries, for sailors to encounter race officials. I always come away from such an event with a list of ideas and projects. However, our rules and our methods should be based on everyday racing not exceptional events. There is an issue in the WS process, in that the rule writers are predominately race officials who officiate at the elite end of the sport. We should be attentive to this. I would add, that is excatly why I initiated this conversation on this forum... to hear from the grassroot sailors.

Unfortunately, there has emerged in recent years a number of race officials who are influenced by the practices of other sailing disciplines. We have developed several unique features in radio sailing that these persons do not seem to fully understand or agree with. For instance the involvement of observers, and especially the involvement of observers who are competitors. Radio sailing umpiring has always been based on the reality that umpires will not see everything, so there has to be way of bringing an issue or incident to the protest committee. Some umpires have difficulty with this. Others have difficulty accepting that an umpire's decision should e based on the information available to the competitor, so the umpire is required to stay in the control area.

This difference of opinion lead to a crisis in which the Croatian Sailing Federation submitted (we presume with the cooperation of leading race officials) a submission that would have made umpired racing the default form of the sport, would have removed observers and allowed umpires to roam freely, on the bank or on the water.

I would add that I do not always approve of the attitude and behaviour of some of my colleagues. I have, on occasion, thought about reporting a race official to World Sailing. Perhaps we should consider doing this more frequently. Anyone concerned can make a complaint. WS does take such complaints seriously .

There are major issues with using raised platforms for the control area. The major issue is a lack of flexibility... the competitors are constrained in one area, and the race committee cannot move the race area to offer a sailable course. If the wind is not in exactly the right direction then the race committee will have difficulty setting a fair start line that competitors can see, and laying marks with the range of vision of the competitors.

I think that the idea of recording repeat offenders is an excellent idea. I think that this can be done without a rule change.

To finish with a rant: the class chooses the venue for its key events.   When choosing the venue the sailing side of the event should be given priority. We have to face the reality that there are venues that are not suitable for major events. There are others that are suitable, even excellent, as long as the full extent of the bank, on both sides of the racing area. For instance at one event, when the control area was on the shore line marks were distant, and the afternoon sun dazzled sailors and race officials. When the control area was moved to the pontoon on the other side of the racing area these problems disappeared.

The class and the club, as the organising authority,  have the right, to tell the race committee .how to run racing. The race committee has an obligation to run racing as directed by the club and class.

There are events at which the class has chosen an unsuitable venue, the race committee then compounds this by setting courses beyond the known limits of the human eye. The result is that neither competitors nor observers  nor  umpires can see what is going on. Calls are missed, or are made late. In these circumstances it can be demoralising, to say the least, to spend a week viewing distant dots on the ocean, trying to give some kind of service to competitors, and being criticised for declaring, in all honesty, that one cannot make a decision

As a confident person and having been introduced  to radio sailing with observers from the start I enjoy the umpired events and observing in these events and have learnt a lot working with the umpires, but not every country or skipper is as confident and maybe more effort from IRSA should be put into education in this area.

Darin,

Paradoxically, these elaborate structures are often constructed in the belief that they will improve competitor's view of the sailing area. This may be true when the wind is exactly in the right direction.

Possibly the best venues are were the shore line is concave so that the bottom and top ends of the course can be near the shore. Foster City, Ste. Hilaire (on one side of the lake) and the Swedish venue for the DF65s ( a long pontoon with several changes of direction. Roganitza (not sure if I spelt that right) was good when sailing off the pontoon, not off the shoreline. Fleetwood has the great advantage that it is impossible to set a course with marks too far from the bank.

Other venues were particularly difficult. I think that we should accept that there are not many venues that are suitable for the very top level events.

I take your point on education - I would suggest that this should be seen as IRSA assisting the national radio sailing associations to train observers.

On 29/03/2025 at 23:56, John Ball said:

One item that could be changed is the penalty for BFD/UFD. As I understand it, the penalty for DSQ is fleet plus 1. In a 76 boat HMS championship, that is a huge scoring penalty especially for a boat in (say) A or B fleet. Perhaps this penalty should be last place in heat plus 1.

This is a very philosophical discussion beyond my pay grade!🙄

John

Sorry, I dragged that a bit off-topic there - straying into hms scoring rather than the sailing rules. But yes (and spot the bloke - me - who sails only local Sunday club racing lol), fleet dsq +1 seems disproportionate.

One of the issues in radio sailing is the multiplicity of the rules that apply

Well, this has been an interesting read. 
 

As someone who is cutting their teeth on RO duties I recognise many of the issues here. 
 

I believe that much of the issue here is due to the different standards that are applied at club sailing and bigger events.  Club sailing is often way too relaxed when it comes to applying the rules and we, as skippers, become too complacent. 
 

We as RO’s at club level have a part to play here. 

While reflecting on the rules that apply if the RRS 20 'magic disappearing hail' interpretation is confirmed, a thought came to me.

It concerns RRS 14 Avoiding Contact. At present a right of way boat that breaks RRS 14 is exonerated unless the contact result in damage or injury. Injury is very rare in radio sailing, and our boats are quite resilient.

Would boats be more likely to avoid contact if exoneration for a right of way boat is not granted if the boats become disabled? This would mean that even if the entanglement was short the RoW would have broken a rule and need to take a penalty.

In a particularly egregious case a judge or umpire can do something under the current rules... by establishing that the boat had broken rule 2, Fair Sailing.

 

Edited April 1, 20251 yr by Gordon W Davies

8 minutes ago, Gordon W Davies said:

It concerns RRS 14 Avoiding Contact. At present a right of way boat that breaks RRS 14 is exonerated unless the contact result in damage or injury. Injury is very rare in radio sailing, and our boats are quite resilient.

Would boats be more likely to avoid contact if exoneration for a right of way boat is not granted if the boats become disabled? This would mean that even if the entanglement was short the RoW would have broken a rule and need to take a penalty.

 

Hi Gordon,

My answer to this is NO. We have enough issues with ‘chancers’ pushing their luck, often knowingly with little attempt made in avoiding contact. Your suggestion puts further doubt in the mind of the RoW boat and gives more purchase of outcome to the ‘chancer’. A way to stop the chancer and better protect the RoW would be a better solution IMHO. 
Brad

Edited April 1, 20251 yr by Brad Gibson

9 minutes ago, Brad Gibson said:

Hi Gordon,

My answer to this is NO. We have enough issues with ‘chancers’ pushing their luck, often knowingly with little attempt made in avoiding contact. Your suggestion puts further doubt in the mind of the RoW boat and gives more purchase of outcome to the ‘chancer’. A way to stop the chancer and better protect the RoW would be a better solution IMHO. 
Brad

Agree with Brad 100%.  The penalty for the give way boat needs to be greater.  Penalising the stand-on boat is not the way to go

Port chancers - this may sound strong but from personal experience of been taken out several times by the same boat on the first day of an event I have no problem of them been penalised to the hilt, it made me really think about participating in certain events over the last couple of years, thankfully getting the desire back to compete at the top level again.

1st offence - 360 turn and behind all the boats that were hindered, might be 4+.

2nd offence - DSQ (non discardable)

3rd offence - DSQ plus miss next race/heat

A possible change to Rule 18 would be that; a boat that enters the zone of a windward mark, on the correct lay line, is entitled to mark room from any boats that need to tack to round the mark; thus a boat approaching the mark on Port would not be allowed to tack inside (or close in front of) a boat approaching on Starboard.  If they are clear ahead then they can cross and tack outside the line of the boat on the lay line,  if not, they must pass astern.  This rule could also be applied to Starboard hand marks, giving the boat on port mark room against a boat on Starboard.

A concept I'm thinking about is the idea of 'prohibited areas' around boats.  In my opinion, many people leave far too little margin for error when in close proximity to another boat or more especially when manoeuvring near another boat.  The idea is to have a sort of buffer zone round each boat and encroachment into this zone should be penalised.  For example, I am fed up with people (with no overlap) trying to cut inside me at marks.  I believe strongly that if you reach a mark clear ahead you should be able to round it clear ahead.   Therefore I would like to introduce a prohibited area between a boat clear ahead and the mark (say 1 or maybe 1.5 boat lengths wide.  A trailing boat could not enter this space.

From several of the comments in this thread it appears that I am not alone in getting pretty fed up with the way some people sail.  I'm afraid that the only way to change behaviour is to either change the rules to keep boats further apart or to apply greater sanctions to those that do misbehave.  Behaviour needs to change from the bottom up.  I know it seems harsh to be a stickler for the rules in an informal club race but why should the standard of acceptable behaviour at club level be different to that at a world championship?  At club level I don't have a problem with noting an incident and then sorting it out after the race, provided it is  sorted out and both parties understand the incident and who was at fault.  If the incident is ignored then it just encourages the guilty party to do it again and again.

Quite a few of the comments refer to "lay line", "layline" or "correct lay line", so it looks as if it's a fairly pivotal concept, al least in the minds of skippers, to understanding the windward mark rounding rules people think might be improved. Have I just missed it in a search of the Racing Rules (apart from a couple of casual mentions in passing in the Casebook eg Case 132) or is it not a defined term?

How exactly is it defined?

The rules  refer to 'fetching' the mark and that is a defined term. Fetching is the ability to round the mark without tacking.

See my web site Chapter 1 The Definitions and scroll to page 13 for a description and diagram.

https://sites.google.com/site/johnsrcsailingrulesandtactics/

John

Edited April 3, 20251 yr by John Ball
added reference

Thanks John, I know fetching exists in the RRS. What interests me in the context of this discussion is "layline" or "correct layline".

I'm not an expert on the RRS, so I may not be understanding this correctly, but fetching would seem to include a boat sailing significantly higher the course that would yield maximum VMG to windward. Is that right?

Would a boat with, for example, only the aft third of its jib & main full be fetching?

I may be wrong, but I get the impression most skippers tend to think of 'layline' as something a little different to the highest course a boat could possibly sail in order to round the mark without passing through head to wind. 

When people refer to having been tacked underneath when "on the layline" or "on the correct layline" what *exactly* do they mean?

 

 

HI Simmo,

the lay line is just an expression - when I tack on the lay line, I think I am at a place where I can sail around (fetch) the mark in comfort. If I tack above it, I can crack off a bit as I get to the mark for extra speed. If I am below the lay line, I may not be able to round it without tacking again - but if I am just a bit below the lay line near the mark, I may be able to 'head reach' to get around. However when I head up to squeeze around the mark, I must not pass HTW (or I have started to tack).

John

 

11 minutes ago, John Ball said:

HI Simmo,

the lay line is just an expression - when I tack on the lay line, I think I am at a place where I can sail around (fetch) the mark in comfort. If I tack above it, I can crack off a bit as I get to the mark for extra speed. If I am below the lay line, I may not be able to round it without tacking again - but if I am just a bit below the lay line near the mark, I may be able to 'head reach' to get around. However when I head up to squeeze around the mark, I must not pass HTW (or I have started to tack).

John

 

I typically don't 'like' the idea of ending up too far above lay line. But with this thread highlighting things about the long-range reality of our sport, I'm realising/remembering that that isn't always a bad thing: overstand a little, and stay out of trouble. Even being RoW can be a moot point if you put yourself somewhere where you might get taken out. (Aside from total chancers/lunatics, perhaps)

'Less [ambition]' can work out being more...?  Of course the hyper-competitors will be seeking every inch of advantage. But in my case I reckon there's greater chance of me stuffing my race with a penalty/collision/stall - especially when I'm not the one shouting loudest - than by giving away a boat length... 🙃

 

But... surely if you have significantly over stood the lay-line and are coming into a mark that is to be left to port, a port tacker may tack inside your and force you to head up so long as they do not require you to go above close hauled.  18.3(a).

So don't just assume that boats coming in on port and tack in the zone have given up all their rights.

am I correct?

2 minutes ago, Wayne Stobbs said:

But... surely if you have significantly over stood the lay-line and are coming into a mark that is to be left to port, a port tacker may tack inside your and force you to head up so long as they do not require you to go above close hauled.  18.3(a).

So don't just assume that boats coming in on port and tack in the zone have given up all their rights.

am I correct?

Ok you’ve overstood the lay line but the guy on port can’t tell if you are close hauled or freed off a bit. So he shouldn’t assume there will be room. 

OK, so "lay line " is undefined. So presumably there cannot really be a "correct" one?

RRS does not appear to provide a definition of "close hauled" on a word search, but it is something a boat tacking from port to starboard in the zone is not allowed to require a starboard boat to sail above.

Is there a clear WS definition and I've missed it? (It's mentioned in Case 132 - is there a widely agreed implied definition from that, if so what is it?)