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.

Cue Lester, I suspect! (And others, I imagine). I recall he touched on this at the IOM Nats briefing.

The "Call Book" covers this - probably clearly, but when I got to the final paragraph, I was no longer sure!

As you say, something that just explains the broad intent would probably help cement the context of the more formal definitions.

Pile ups at a mark are where I think it may often come into play - e.g. a port tack clatterer who causes mayhem, boats who were quietly on starboard and playing nicely ending up being put about, into irons, missing mark etc.

Edited April 30, 20251 yr by Colin Helliwell
Example added

I suggest to read the WS Call Book for Radio Sailing, especially Call B2. The call book may be found by visiting my web site

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

and click on the Racing Rules Reference tab at top of the page.

Also read my Chapter 9 The Penalty Turn.

The bottom line is that an advantage is when you gain places in the heat. So if you are in (say) 3rd place on port and foul two stbd tackers, and if you had gone behind you would have been in 5th place, and the two stbd boats are stalled out - then you should take one or more turns until two boat have passed you so you are in 5th - not until behind the two boats you fouled.

John

 

1 minute ago, John Ball said:

So if you are in (say) 3rd place on port and foul two stbd tackers, and if you had gone behind you would have been in 5th place, and the two stbd boats are stalled out - then you should take one or more turns until two boat have passed you so you are in 5th - not until behind the two boats you fouled.

 

Crikey, that's a meaning that hadn't even occurred to me! In hindsight - thanks John - I guess that's what the 'relative to fleet' aspect is getting at?

If you watch SailGP you may be fooled on how to apply the rules - but they have a modified set of rules. If you foul a boat in SailGP, your penalty is to get behind them. They have another interesting rule - we are used to calling for room to tack at an obstruction on a beat, and they have a similar rule for their boundary but as they sail such high angles downwind and they seem to tack where we would gybe - so they also have a room entitlement for downind.  Special event - special rules.

John

Rule E4.3(b), Taking a Penalty: "If a boat gained an advantage despite taking a penalty, she shall take additional turns until her advantage is lost".

There are two points to make about this rule.  The first is that it seems to have the right intention -- a boat should not gain an advantage by breaking a rule.  The second is that the rule is not fit for radio sailing.

First is the good news.  A stronger version of this rule is found in 44.1(b), where a significant advantage means the boat shall retire, and E4.3(b) reduces this requirement to one or more additional penalties.  This rule is in place for other sailing disciplines -- windsurfers have their own version of 44.1 at B4 which includes it, match racers have C8.3, team racers have D1.3, and kiteboarders have F4, so radio sailors are in good company.  Don't be fooled, though, by the apparently lighter version of our rule, because under the original RRS 44.1(b) a boat shall retire ONLY if her advantage was "significant", while we seem to have to take penalties for ANY advantage.

Now the bad news, which can be summed up in one issue -- what is an "advantage", who gets to say it is an "advantage", and how can anyone know it is an "advantage"?

We need to know what we are talking about.  Earlier, I wrote, "a boat should not gain an advantage by breaking a rule", and I guess you nodded your head and said to yourself, Yeah, it shouldn't.  But that was just a little trick with words.  What I should have written was the more ponderous, "a boat should not gain an advantage after breaking a rule and then taking the penalty for breaking the rule".  Oh, hang on, that's quite different.  The whole point of our game of racing toy boats is to gain advantages, hopefully enough of them to finish ahead of the others we are racing.  The point of any rules is to make the game fair(*), and the point of any penalty is to wipe the slate clear so the game can continue. I did the crime, I took the time, why can I not now get on with my life, er, race?

The issue isn't the rule so much as the penalty.  We know from around 5,000 years of civilization that a penalty should be in proportion to the crime, known in advance (rather than made up on the spot), imposed beyond reasonable doubt, and after it has been taken the slate is wiped clear.  The problem we have in radio sailing is knowing the situation beyond reasonable doubt.  Let's just check back with our sailing disciplines -- the rules apply to dinghy and yacht racers, windsurfers, match racers, team racers, and kiteboarders maybe separated by 2 metres with people on board who are within 3 metres or so of the incident, and in addition for match racers and team racers, they apply to umpires on boats within 10 metres of the incident.  Radio sailing?  That applies to toy boats maybe 50 metres away separated by 20 centimetres with the additional burden of E5.2, that observers and umpires shall have no visual advantage over competitors, who in turn are not permitted visual aids.

Let's see how this plays out in the official guidance from World Sailing for Radio Sailing, known as the Call Book 2025-2028.  We'll look at Call B2, and we will do so in detail because it illustrates the issue so well.  Here is the diagram.

A preliminary point to note is that the beautifully reproduced positions of the boats, the mark, and the zone in the diagram could not all have been known to anyone at the time of the incident.  OK, so what do we see?  P is on port and enters the zone, and though she is level with A she is apparently ahead of B and C.  P tacks on to starboard underneath A and lays the mark.  The Call tells us that P gives room to A, B, and C and then tells us that A luffs to avoid P.  Wait -- we were just told that P correctly gave room, why did A have to luff to avoid P?  

The Call then explains that B luffs to avoid A, and C luffs to avoid B, and as a result it was C who was forced by P to sail above close-hauled.  Wait -- wasn't it B who forced C to sail above close-hauled?  

Now, back to the diagram and see that B and C are windward boats and are required to keep clear of A.  That B and C had to luff when A luffed is explained by the fact that they were too close to A in the first place, about 0.2 of a boat length.  Wait -- what has that got to do with P?

Let's just check 18.3, where P is at fault if she forces A above close-hauled.  Wait -- the Call tells us that A luffed, but that it was C who sailed above close-hauled, not A;  how can it be that P broke 18.3 here?

The Call tells us that P took a penalty turn and was still some distance ahead of B and C.  Wait -- other things being equal, there is nothing in the diagram, or the description of the incident, to suggest that, if P took a turn, B and C would still be "some distance" behind.

The Call tells us that P is ahead of B and C as a consequence of breaking rule 18.3.  Here we are at the crux of the issue, and ... Wait -- how, exactly, is P ahead of B and C as a *consequence* of breaking rule 18.3?  At the last known certain position, which is position 1 in the diagram, P was ahead of B and C, for all that she was on port and they were on starboard.

Finally, the Call tells us that P should take additional turns, although it does not say what the advantage is, not does it say at what point the imagined advantage is lost.  Wait -- there are at least six (6) "Waits" here, any one of which is enough to call into question the idea that P must take additional turns because she gained an advantage.

Almost there.  We now need to look at Call P4.  The paragraph of relevance here is the final paragraph,

"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."

So, it is fine that the infringing boat can have gained an advantage over the infringed boat.  Wait -- that isn't what the rule actually says.

To be clear, I have no problem with Calls B2 and P4, because I think they illustrate very well my opening remark -- the rule is not fit for its purpose in radio sailing.

(*) Yes, but fair for who?  Turns out that rules were developed for sports and games (such as horse racing, cricket, boxing, and, yes, yacht racing) in order to make it fair for those who wished to gamble on the outcomes.  The side effect of this was to make it more certain that the team or person judged to have won indeed did so according to the rules, and could then be awarded the prize (money, silverware) correctly, making it "fair" for the sponsors and event organisers, and so eventually fair for the onlookers and audience.  Nothing to do with making it fair for those playing the game.

1 hour ago, Lester Gilbert said:

So, it is fine that the infringing boat can have gained an advantage over the infringed boat.  Wait -- that isn't what the rule actually says.

 

Purely in Devils Advocate mode - not because I have a silver bullet solution lol: what about at the business end of an event? Infringing boat might take sufficient turns to stay in the heat/fleet position they should have been, but as a by product the infringed boat itself ends up losing place(s)?  

On 2nd sentence: so what does the rule actually say?

Your comments noted and agreed with re. whats actually visible and accurately judgeable in our sport/hobby. But as with much of life, if a 'law' can't be fairly assessed, judged, and the penalty applied, then is it thereby a bit worthless and causing more difficulties than it solves....? (Sail GP, AC and F1 have the advantages of huge data, and still sometimes can't be conclusive!)

 

Edited May 1, 20251 yr by Colin Helliwell

And I'm actually not that bothered about big events - I'm too shy. This kind of mark/bank carnage must be more likely at club-level - skippers might be new to sailing, or inexperienced in rc boats. There will always be a huge difference across club skippers' experience and knowledge (if not then we're failing to bring in new blood....!) but tortuous rules that can't be passed down and explained can result in tetchy 'discussions' and atmosphere...

 

41 minutes ago, Colin Helliwell said:

Purely in Devils Advocate mode - not because I have a silver bullet solution lol: what about at the business end of an event? Infringing boat might take sufficient turns to stay in the heat/fleet position they should have been, but as a by product the infringed boat itself ends up losing place(s)?  

 

Hi Colin,

Just as in real life, when a crime is committed, the guilty is entitled to due process, but the victim has no rights, So when a ROW boat(s) is stalled, the keep clear, fouling boat has to take a prescribed penalty, but the victim has no special rights except if disabled, when redress might be available. But even then, while they might receive redress points, they would still be relegated and have to fight their way back.

John

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.

3 minutes ago, David Lapes said:

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.

That's certainly a mantra I'm trying to adopt. Even tho I can't be the fastest, staying out of trouble can also be fruitful 

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.

3 minutes ago, David Lapes said:

If it is just poor judgement or bad control; or worse still an untimely windshift... Then an apology and a spin is in order.

At club level I reckon its very likely to be at least one of those. Whereby the apology and a 'just in case it was my fault' spin is best for bonhomie and a pleasant morning

The only comment I would make is that sailors at any level in sailing in general, including radio sailing, seem to assume that they know the rules despite them being updated every 4 years.  In recent months I've even heard an experienced dinghy sailor new to radio sailing ask "when do I call mast abeam?".  That's someone who is at least 20 years out of date!  

So World Sailing haven't helped with this particular rule update cycle as the Call Book for Radio Sailing which does give excellent clarification on rules wasn't released until a couple of weeks ago when the rules have been "live" since 1st January.

On 04/05/2025 at 01:06, Guzzilazz said:

So World Sailing haven't helped with this particular rule update cycle as the Call Book for Radio Sailing which does give excellent clarification on rules wasn't released until a couple of weeks ago when the rules have been "live" since 1st January.

The IRSA and the Appendix E Working Group completed the review and update of the Radio Sailing Call Book in late 2024 and at least WS have finally published it - the WS Case Book is still not out.

One problem is that the rewrite of R 18.2 which changed the order of the rules and renumbered them without any real change of meaning has created a lot of detailed updates to many of the cases. The 18.3 change to turn off 18.2 when 18.3 applies only affected a few calls and cases - but was significant as that change reversed some of the decisions as the boat that tacked in the zone no longer gained mark room.

John

 

P passes head to wind from port to starboard. Rule 18.2 does not apply and 18.3 does.

P reaches close hauled on starboard without any boat needing to take avoiding action. P does not break RRS 13

P initially gives A Band C room to keep clear as required by RRS 15.

A Band C have been on starboard since entering the zone and are all fetching the mark. The second part of 18.3 applies.

A luffs to avoid contact with P, B luffs to avoid contact with A and C luffs above close-hauled to avoid contact with B. P has caused C to luff above close-hauled and breaks RRS 18.3

Assuming A was in 1st place as she entered the zone. If P had passed astern of A, B, and C, and thus avoided breaking RRS 18.3, she would have rounded the mark in 4th place. So, after taking a penalty she should be in 4th place or worse. If noy she should take another penalty.

 

 

 

On 05/05/2025 at 18:04, John Ball said:

The IRSA and the Appendix E Working Group completed the review and update of the Radio Sailing Call Book in late 2024 and at least WS have finally published it - the WS Case Book is still not out.

One problem is that the rewrite of R 18.2 which changed the order of the rules and renumbered them without any real change of meaning has created a lot of detailed updates to many of the cases. The 18.3 change to turn off 18.2 when 18.3 applies only affected a few calls and cases - but was significant as that change reversed some of the decisions as the boat that tacked in the zone no longer gained mark room.

John

John,

As always your knowledge and insight into the workings at WS is very helpful

 

 

There is a WS Q&A, recently published, that addresses the  issue of 'advantage'. This upholds the principles set out in the Radio Sailing Calls.

 

Previously David wrote:

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.

Two boats that are close to each other, or even touching each other, are able to manouevre and continue racing.They are not disabled. Neither is boat that is in irons. In both cases there are acts of seamanship that allow the person controlling the boat to manoeuvre the boat. A boat is disabled while it is unable to continue in the race: this may be because it is entangled with another boat, or vegetation, aground... In these cases there is nothing the person controlling the boat can do.

2025 2 advantage.pdf