I do not think it is a rule 2 if the leeward boat takes the penalty. It only a 2 if he tries to get the windward boat to take a penalty as per the case

Mike,

I assume the case you are referring to is this one

Case 73

Rule 2, Fair SailingRule 11, On the Same Tack, Overlapped

When, by deliberate action, L's crew reaches out and touches W, which action could have no other intention than to cause W to break rule 11, then L breaks rule 2.

On Jaakko's description, as I see it, the leeward boat is fairly and squarely caught by this case and has broken rule 2, and according to the case, the windward boat has not failed to keep clear and has broken no rule.

L is not permitted to take a voluntary turns penalty for breaking rule 2 in accordance with rule 44.1, because that rule applies only to rules of Part 2 and rule 31.

Umpires can and should award an umpire initiated penalty in accordance with rule D2.3(g), which may be two or more turns and a black flag to refer the incident to the protest committee for further hearing.

I don't quite understand what is meant by protection under RRS 23.2.  I'm guessing this means protection from other boats coming in from L's leeward side.  In this case, L can't begin 'taking her penalty' until she gets well clear of other boats, until which time she is not taking her penalty and is not 'protected' by rule 23.2 at all.

Sounds like L was being too smart by half.

I have to say I disagree with the interpretation. 
This is a team race so we know if a boat is trying to put a penalty on another boat, they red flag.
Here there is no evidence of a red flag, they take a voluntary penalty, what better evidence than that there is fair sailing?

The intention of L's actions was to deliberately break a rule of Part 2, be allowed to take a One Turn Penalty and so become a "boat that is taking a penalty". This would lead to W not being allowed to interfere with her.

Another iteration:
Suppose the forward crew of a two-man dinghy intentionally touches W without the skipper's permission?
Or the crew mistakenly yells "Starboard" when on port?
It seems a voluntary penalty is appropriate.

In my question the boats are Optimists so they are single-handed dinghies.

Jaakko,

Do I understand that L was trying to break out of a windward 'ragging' control by W?

So that, with no boats to leeward, L could roll into a gybe, thus beginning to 'take her penalty' and W would then have to sheet in and stop ragging her sail and stop putting disturbed air on L?

Is that how it was meant to go?

I'm also aware of the habit of some Optimists of rapidly gybing out of trouble because of their manoeuverability.

If I haven't understood it, could you explain a little more please.

On Mike's objections to overuse of Case 73.

When I was young, before Case 73 hit the streets, and in non-trapeze dinghies, it was common for a skipper or crew in a leeward boat to reach out and tap the hull of a windward boat and suggest that they go home.

The notion was that if you could touch the windward boat (without reaching out too far), then she was so close that she was not keeping clear and you were just demonstrating this.

So is it critical to applying Case 73 that the touch by by a crew on trapeze on the leeward boat?, and that with contact by reaching out from a leeward boat without an exaggerated stretch, it is indistinguishable between:

Can we also be use an analogy from Case 77 to say that where W is otherwise keeping clear, contact with a part of a crew of the leeward boat that moves suddenly and unexpectedly out of position does not break a right of way rule?

Phil,

The rules apply to 'boats', compendiously including the crew on board (Definitions that aren't definitions, RRS Introduction, Terminology).

You can't have another boat having to worry about who particularly said or did something, or whether this was permitted or directed by the person in charge of another boat.

As to a false hail, Case 47 requires that the hail be deliberately and knowingly false.

John,
Yes, the idea is to get out of W's control by gybing. If the gybe is a part of L's penalty, W is not permitted to prevent L from gybing.

I get the idea.

But doesn't that mean that by evading control, she gains a significant advantage?

Is this move common?   What do TR umpires think about it?

It seems to raise a broader issue:  what is the difference between a boat taking a penalty turn and a boat sailing in a circle?  I know some sailors who sail their boats around in circles quite often without meaning to take a penalty <g>.

This move is quite common in Optimist TR in Finland. I don't know what TR umpires think about it because we don't have any TR umpires in Finland. And in MR it's different because you cannot take a penalty before the starting signal. Optimist TR Nationals is the only TR event we have and I will be the Chief Umpire of that event.
 
 Yes, L gains a significant advantage. So the umpire could penalize her under RRS D2.3(c)? However, if L doesn't break RRS 2, does she break any rule? She is a right-of-way boat. And if she doesn't, is she allowed to take a penalty?

Yes.  There is contact that L could have avoided.   L broke rule 14.  The fact that she is exonerated by rule 43.1(c) doesn't mean that she didn't break the rule.

W either keeps clear 'because nothing B did or failed to do required A "to take avoiding action"' (Case 77, or if she does not keep clear, is exonerated for breaking rule 11 by rule 43.1(a) because she was compelled by L breaking rule 14.  So W has nothing to worry about.

So L may have (in fact has) broken a rule of Part 2, so she may take a turns penalty, so when she bears away to gybe she is legitimately taking a penalty and is protected by rule 23.2.

It may be possible for W to stop ragging and interfering with L and still retain her position to control L when L completes her penalty,  or she might not.

If and when the umpires see that L has gained a significant advantage they certainly can give a penalty under rule D2.3(c).

If there is a significant advantage,  this then cycles back to rule 2.  L deliberately broke rule 14, intending to gain an advantage.  So I think the umpires could also rely on rule D2.3(g).

Is the intention of the move maybe to confuse W, and if W doesn't promptly stop ragging and stay away from L while L is doing her turn, to protest W for breaking rule 23.2?

That seems even closer to rule 2.

Strikes me as very contrived and artificial and a bit too sophisticated for a lot of Opti sailors.

Mike B, any other umpires, what do you think? 

I think its worth a request for a Rapid Response Call.

It's certainly something for an Umpire Policy, or an Event Call, particularly if it's becoming common or fashionable.

Thank you! Can I request a Rapid Response Call? If yes, how can I request it?

I have two references.   

Can anyone else help Jackson along?


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sailing.org/raceofficials/rapidresponsecalls/index.php&ved=2ahUKEwjN1OLoioPzAhVRX30KHcvIBo0QFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0zgZchNq6UackJrNMLd6Nl

ISAF Rapid Response Calls

In addition to the editions and supplements of the Calls Books, ISAF also responded to demand from event organizers and umpires for short-term answers by providing an ISAF Rapid Response Calls system for both Match Racing and Team Racing.

Calls proposed under this system should be presented in a format similar to existing calls, and sent to the ISAF office in Southampton (see www.sailing.org/contactisaf for contact details). Any diagrams should preferably be in TSS (TSS is a special boat drawing programme). A call approved as a Rapid Response Call will be immediately communicated to all ISAF International Umpires (IUs) and MNAs. It will also be posted on the ISAF Race Officials microsite at www.sailing.org/raceofficials.

As an umpire, I am shocked at the discussion of penalising a leeward boat who does not protest but takes a penalty.
Generally I am at a loss to understand a windward boat being in control, we allocate this to a leeward boat who may luff.
I just cannot understand why the leeward boat has been targeted by umpires in this way.

Michael, what do you think about John's argument about breaking RRS 14 to gain advantage? This could happen when boats are on the left side of the left starting mark. The windward boat on the right side is in better position because she is closer to the starting line. And it's very difficult for the leeward boat to get back to the starting line if the windward boat prevents her from gybing by bearing away on starboard. So, in this kind of a situation, the windward boat would be in control.

Mike,

I really value your 'philosophical' approach.

As you may have notices from various posts of mine, I'm generally very unenthusiastic about over-use of rule 2.

In this case, I'm just trying to apply the rules as they are written, applied to a somewhat hazy visualisation of the scenarios Jaakko is describing, and my somewhat imperfect understanding of TR.

Do you have any doubt that L broke rule 14 and that this was deliberate?

Do you think W broke rule 11 and if so, should she be penalised or exonerated?

Jaakko,

In the absence of rule 23.2, could you explain exactly how W could 'prevent' L from gybing and leading W back to the starting line?  A diagram would help.

The way rule 23.2 'protects' a boat taking a penalty is by that boat protesting.  Does your scenario involve L protesting W?  If so, exactly at what stage of the manoeuvre?

L may have broken rule 11 but she is exonerated so there is nothing left to worry about.

I do have doubts it was deliberate, how can we know. The proof of being deliberate is to claim a penalty from the windward boat, this was not done so the evidence is to the contrary.

I do not see how L Leeds back (or its importance) she has to gybe and tack so remains below, if she travels further she has not done a penalty turn correctly.   If she is exonerated she is not taking a penalty. You cannot take a penalty for rule 2. How would anyone know an initial gybe was a penalty turn?

How does W protect herself, she follows L down as after the gybe if L luffs sharply she i subject to 16.1.  There is a TR case on this at the pin on returning to the start.

The windward boat is never in control as a windward boat.
If they bear off and L gybes, W now starboard has control.  I do not see it as control before.

John, here you have a diagram on how W can prevent L from gybing. My scenario doesn't involve any protest.

Michael, we know it's deliberate because L's sailor touches W with his hand reached out towards W.

Michael, RRS D1.3(a) states: "A boat may take a One-Turn Penalty when she may have broken one or more rules of Part 2". This rule doesn't say anything about exoneration. RRS 14 is a rule of Part 2. Doesn't this mean that a boat may (but is not required to) take a One Turn Penalty when she may have broken RRS 14, even if she is exonerated?

But why would you even think of taking a penalty as an exonerated boat.
I just do not believe this is a real situation so I do not believe we should force rules onto it.
You have L who may have put an arm out instinctively ( thus not deliberately) to keep W away (probably because he was too close). He does not protest, so there is no reason to consider a penalty, you take a voluntary penalty in team racing once the protest flag goes up and before the umpires answer.
The boat bears off on a crowded start with 7other boats.
The child has no time for all these deep thoughts, they are just trying to start.

There is no time for long deliberation the boats are often all nearly in contact and you are looking for gaps everywhere in case there is a collision.
Whatever would cause you to pause and consider with your fellow umpire a rule 2 when you are so bust and likely to have another call made of you any second.

This is a real situation and many coaches are telling the Optimist sailors to deliberately break a rule to be allowed to take a penalty. Even the head coach of the Finnish Sailing and Boating Federation said, on a national Optimist and Zoom8 team racing clinic, that this is a good way to get out of the situation described above.

21.1 "boat taking a penalty shall keep clear" is stronger than 23.2 "if reasonably possible shall not interfere."
And after the starting signal, 23.2 goes away.

the advice is clearly bad. This is what is wrong with coaches.
Why risk a rule 2 for this, I am sure they are not told to hold the windward boat.
They could have broken 16.1 so the touching is not necessary.
What use is the manoeuvre at all if the windward boat does not know you are doing a penalty?
All L need do is think he may have broken a rule call "spinning" to inform w he is doing a penalty, and he is protected (once he has sailed clear) without a rule breach.

Mike,

Do you think it's any business of the umpires to consider whether or not he may have broken a rule?

No there's no time and too much to do. 

Jaakko,

I’ve given this problem a bit of thought, and thanks to Mike for his wisdom nudging me In the right directions.

I hope this response finds you in time for your event, and I hope also that you have had the opportunity to discuss the issue with senior umpires in your National Association.

As I said before, this strikes me as very contrived and artificial, but I guess that describes most of Team Racing.

So you’re now telling us that this is a coached ‘move’, and Mike is very rightly saying that it is misconceived.

Let me sum up.

A leeward right of way boat, just by reaching out and deliberately touching a windward boat with her hand does not necessarily break rule 2 as indicated by Case 73 because, the umpires might consider that absent a protest by Y, the condition in Case 73 that [Y’s] action could have no other intention than to cause W to break rule 11 cannot be inferred and that Y has not broken rule 2 and should not be penalised under rule D2.3(g).

However, umpires, now knowing that this play is being advocated by coaches, might form an opinion that this is a deliberate breach of rule 14, and it is intended to gain an advantage and penalise her in accordance with rule 2.3(g) for a breach of sportsmanship, or else they might wait to see what happens next after the touching incident.

A boat is, or should be presumed to be, taking a penalty when she has got well clear of other boats and is making a turn, after:

·         being signalled a penalty by an umpire

·         clearly indicating that she will take a penalty, and

 

It might or might not also be inferred that, after an incident in which she has, or it is likely that she may have broken a rule, a boat promptly sails well clear and begins making a turn, that her sailing actions alone may  be taken as ‘clearly indicating’ that she will take a penalty, and is taking one.

When these conditions apply and a boat is taking a penalty, rule 21.2 requires her to keep clear of other boats, and, by the Preamble to Section D, other right of way rules do not apply, and 23.2 requires other boats, if reasonably possible, not to interfere with her.

A boat to which these conditions do not apply is not taking a penalty, and rules 21.2 and 23.2 do not apply.

A boat that has clearly indicated that she will take a penalty is required to take that penalty (rule D2.3(e)).  She does not actually have to break a rule for this to apply.

In the example you have described, shown in the diagram, after the touching incident, @1 the leeward boat promptly sails well clear and begins making a turn.  There is no protest, she is not penalised by an umpire and she does not clearly indicate that she will take a penalty other than by her sailing actions.

 

 

After Y bears away, B bears away inside her and sails parallel to Y downwind, and when Y gybes onto port B hails ’starboard’,  From somewhere just after she reaches her downwind course on starboard @4, B is sailing away from the starting line for no apparent reason except to embarrass Y .  When B hails Starboard,@6 she is definitely interfering with Y, but at that point, Y is not yet failing to keep clear of B.

If Y is taking a penalty, rules 21.2 and 23.2 apply, and B breaks rule 23.2, and on valid protest should be penalised.

Suppose that Y, instead of touching B, had clearly indicated by hailing ‘spinning’  or some such, or by an appropriate gesture, that she was going to take a penalty, she would, without doubt have been taking a penalty and entitled to whatever advantage rule 23.2 might give her.

Should we treat Y any differently because, instead of indicating by hail or gesture, she might claim that she indicated that she was going to take a penalty by her sailing actions alone.

Y only gets to have the advantage of rule 23.2 because B doesn’t realise that she is taking a penalty.  B might well be aware that although Y broke rule 14, she is exonerated by rule 43.1(c) and should not be penalised.  B probably thinks it is OK to attack Y downwind, which has happened because Y did not indicate that she was going to take a penalty clearly enough for B to understand.  Given that bearing away and attempting to gybe away from B would be a normal tactic for Y to follow, there is nothing in her actions in this case that is significantly different from what she is likely to have done if she was not attempting to take a penalty.

In these circumstances, I think It would be right for umpires to decide that Y’s actions did not clearly indicate that she would take a penalty, she was not taking a penalty and that rule 23.2 did not apply.

If Y protested @6, display the green and white flag.

If B protested @7, penalise Y for breaking rule 10.

There would be a completely different outcome if, Y, instead of deliberately touching B, had clearly indicated, by hail or clear gesture, that she was going to take a penalty.  In that case, she would be taking a penalty, rules 21.2 and 23.2 would apply, and @6 B would be breaking rule 23.2.

If Y protested @6, penalise B for breaking rule 23.2

While B would break rule 23.2 @6, if Y, continued to close on B as in the diagram, @7, she would not be keeping clear of B. Rules 21.2 and 23.2 operate concurrently, there is nothing about B breaking rule 23.2 and interfering with Y, that compels Y to break rule 21.2, and Y is not exonerated by rule 43.1(a)

If B protested @7, penalise Y for breaking rule 21.2.

Umpires might adopt and publish to competitors an umpire policy like the following.

If a boat has not been penalised by an umpire or clearly indicated by hail or gesture that she will take a penalty, then umpires will not treat her as a boat taking a penalty.

If umpires were really concerned about the sportsmanship aspects of this coached play, they could adopt an umpire policy like the following, but it's very heavy handed and may be contentious.

Any coach who coaches his team to intentionally break a Rule and then take a penalty for the purpose of gaining an advantage, has lost the plot.  In the unrealistic scenarios provided, any competent windward boat keeping a tight lock on their leeward opponent should still be able to easily maintain control of their opponent after the leeward boat had competed their 'voluntary' penalty.

Are we being a little bit too literal with the case and treating it as part of the rule book? Aren't cases supposed to be examples to educate about the rules? Case 73 describes a situation where a boat deliberately and unnecessarily breaks a rule to gain an advantage and is penalised because this is not fair sailing. The coached example is also deliberately and unnecessarily breaking a rule to gain an advantage. Isn't the detail of the mechanism by which advantage is gained largely irrelevant?