• Hitting a mark but not rounding it
  10 Comments
  Phil Macwhirter Today 12:07
• Zone and RRS 18 in a HC fleet with boats of different lengths
  13 Comments
  Andrew Lesslie Wed 01:37
• Portsmouth Yardstick
  27 Comments
  Satish Kumar Kanwar Sun 13:19
• An ERS question - a contradiction in F 1.6 vs F 1.7(b) (xi)
  3 Comments
  John Ball 26-Feb-26 01:57
• Race Score RRS 35
  6 Comments
  Satish Kumar Kanwar 26-Feb-25 02:23

• Portsmouth Yardstick
  I missed this when it started, but as a headsup I spent quite a few years on the RYA committee that oversees Portsmouth Yardstick racing so it would be nice to think I know something about it.
  
  Personally I am a big fan of average lap scoring when boat performance is widely disparate. The disadvantages of having Optimists and 420s completing the same number of laps, or alternatively sailing the same distance (as in a pursuit race) have been well rehearsed above, and I won't repeat. 
  
  There is a bit of a knack to running an average lap race though, and some pitfalls for the unwary. 
  The RC need to be competent. Especially in windy conditions. Its easy to be caught out by a boat that has a prolonged capsize and is a lap behind. You need good lap charts and more than one of them. Its easy to miss someone.
  Like anything statistical the average lap time calculation works best with plenty of laps. I advise setting a course that has the slow boats doing at least three laps. 
  Although you could, say, set 3 laps for Oppies, 4 for ILCAs and 5 for 420s my preference has always been not to set a fixed number of laps, and just shorten as required. However that's always been with a wide range of classes on the water. It may well work with just a few classes.
  Shortening course is definitely an art. Ideally the leading boats of each fleet will be fairly close and you will shorten in front of the first leader. It is good to mix up which fleet is finished first over the course of a series.
  Major weather changes can really confuse things, if the wind looks like dropping or a front is coming in be ready to shorten course before it arrives.
  
  BNo doubt there's more but that's what occursoff the top of my head.
  Jim Champ Today 21:56
• Hitting a mark but not rounding it
  Calum yes you have to go around the marks. Point was made in Case 108 that Angelo posts.
  
  Hans I agree with your point. Just making the point that you could do both the penalty turn and round the mark together. 
  Warren Collier Today 19:48
• Zone and RRS 18 in a HC fleet with boats of different lengths
  If at 120 ft, 40 ft boat was overlapped and bow ahead, then rule 18 is applicable and the Zone will be as per the 40 ft boat. Later at 60 ft, if the 20 ft boat nudges ahead of the 40 ft boat, the Zone had already been defined by the 40 ft boat (and rule 18 had started applying) and this condition will continue as per 18.2(a) later portion ie
  
  When a boat is required to give mark-room by this rule, she

  shall continue to do so for as long as this rule applies, even if

  later an overlap is broken or a new overlap begins
  
  
  Satish Kumar Kanwar Today 07:04
• Safety Regulations
  Roger, et al,  Could you provide some more detail about how Seagulls work please.
  
  Is a Seagull different from a Beach Maeshall/Master?
  
  What exactly are the duties and tasks of the Seagulls?
  
  What documents/lists do they use?
  
  How do they interact with the CRO?
  John Allan Sun 23:01
• Rule 40.2.b ......at all times while afloat that day
  Calum Polwart said

  I'm not suggesting protesting a dead sailor, 

  
  Neither was I. I was suggesting the reason to enable 40.2(b) was to avoid the headline. Or at least to avoid the subsequent articles of "racer wore lifejacket during race, but took it off to sail home and then drowned"

  
  I don't think OA/RC should be doing things 'to avoid headlines'.  I think the quite legitimate reason for displaying flag Y ashore would be to reduce the risk to sailors.
  
  

  and I wouldn't expect an OA to want to do anything for other than an egregious breach.

  
  Neither would I.

  
  

  I think it would be almost inconceivable for committee or OA to protest against a competitor who had been the subject of a rescue at sea.
  
  

   And I struggle to decide what an egregious breach is! Someone burning their lifejacket in protest perhaps!

  
  It might be that a race committee observing a careless and foolhardy breach of the requirement might choose to protest, particularly if the risk was a well publicised matter of concern.
  
  

  However, does that fact it is in the RRS and enabled by the SI mean the OA might be forced to investigate?

  
  

  The local maritime authority requires us to report and investigate incidents and provide reports, but absent any such regulatory requirement why should it?
  
  Did you perhaps mean 'forced to protest a boat?
  
  The answer to that is:  certainly not.
  
  Case 39 

  
  A race committee is not required to protest a boat.

  
  

  I can imagine the scenario where to bitter rivals are competing at an event. The prizes come down to the final race.  The 'gold medal winner' sails home without his lifejacket on. Can silver (his bitter rival) protest? 

  
  

  Absolutely they can.
  
  In my opinion (20673 above),  if the event has ended and the protest committee has left the event the Organising Authority has a discretion whether or not to appoint the old or a new protest committee to hear the protest.
  
  
  

  And in my other doomsday situation. A club (the OA) has hosted the same event for 3 years. They have enabled 40.2(b) identically for 3 years.  They did so to reduce the risks of an adverse incident being attributed to their event (it might well be stated on the risk assessment for instance). In years 1 and 2, it was known that sailors then sailed without lifejackets on the way home.  No adverse incident occurs in year 1 and 2. But no actual enforcement of the rule took place because the breach wasn't felt egregious.
  
  In year 3 a sailor falls overboard without a lifejacket on, while sailing home.  At the subsequent enquiry, the OA are asked to attend and state they considered the risks, they even enabled 40.2(b) knowing that should mitigate the risks. How might failure to enforce 40.2(b) affect them¿

  
  Who knows what some officious safety authority will decide.
  
  

  I'm based at an inland dinghy club. We have a 100% PFD rule for on the water and on the jetty (our jetty doesn't float).  There are times it isn't enforced (it's a nice sunny day, the risks are low, the sailor is very competent and just walking along the jetty to collect something and return ashore... ...but rules are rules... ...not that I expect disqualification! 
  
  It feels like [NP] [DP] could be helpful here. 

  
  I don't like the idea of NP for a safety rule. That is discouraging competitors from taking safety seriously.  DP O could cope with.
  
  

  But it also feels like if sailors are leaving your water 40.2(b) might not be helpful even if the risk manager feels it is

  
  That's an OA governance issue.  Brave OA that appoints a Risk Manager then refuses to implement his considered advice. 
  
  
  John Allan 26-Feb-27 05:45

Forums Leader Board

This Month