• Should "Basic Principles" be added to RRS 4 & 5?
  5 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Yesterday 13:40
• Judges walking the Dock
  12 Comments
  Robert Stewart Yesterday 04:13
• Language language language
  16 Comments
  Michael Moradzadeh Sat 06:09
• Why is the "red flag" needed?
  41 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Fri 21:38
• Case 104 - Appeals to a National Authority
  2 Comments
  Jerry Thompson Thu 15:23

• Why is the "red flag" needed?
  I agree with Angelo that 'Titles' and 'Basic Principles' are not 'rules'.
  
  There should never be a need for a 'Title' to be cited given that the title should accurately reflect the rules contained thereunder. If they are not 100% consistent then we have a fundamental problem that needs to be resolved.
  
  And then we come to the 'Basic Principles'. if the rules thereunder do not support these then we have a problem there too because they can be simply ignored.
  
  If a 'principle' requires a 'rule' to support it then then rules probably need to be written.
  David Taylor Today 03:04
• Language language language
  The race documents (NoR and SIs) contain rules that describe the obligations of the competitors and the intentions of organizing authority and race officials. "Shall" refers to obligations or duties, while "will" indicates intentions or expected events, reducing ambiguity. Competitors under 18 shall wear a PFD on the water, except briefly when changing or removing clothes is an obligation. The sailing instructions will be posted on the official notice board is an intention. A committee, or another boat, may protest if a boat fails to meet its obligations in the race documents; competitors may request redress if the organizing authority or officials do not act as stated. While redress over late dinner service is unlikely to succeed, protesting an early first warning signal could be successful.
  
  
  Mark Townsend Yesterday 22:50
• Should "Basic Principles" be added to RRS 4 & 5?
  Rob, now that the BP's are no longer a rule I think they are now lacking clear status (and connection to anything).  They are now statements without a clear anchor. They seem to be floating in the non-descript humor of the universe.
  
  If they are not rules, but something everyone agrees to as a principle, then I think they would benefit from being something that all entities in sailing agree to "accept" as such ("agree to accept" as "principles" ... using the language of RRS 4 & 5).
  
  PS: this still keeps them out of rules that can be broken and protested based upon. 
  Angelo Guarino Yesterday 18:54
• Judges walking the Dock
  From a game theoretic point of view, this is not strange at all. We have ended up in an equilibrium where all the sailors use a trigger strategy. This means that they don't protest unless the infringer has protested them earlier. This is, if all the other sailors also use this strategy, individually rational for every sailor. There doesn't need to be any explicit agreement on this, it can emerge naturally. Of course I'm not saying this is good, neither am I telling the sailors who I coach to use this strategy, but that's how it is. I think the most important is to have the RC protest every single contact with a mark, if no penalty is taken, and a proper rule 42 enforcement from the judges.
  Jaakko Haataja Yesterday 18:07
• Case 104 - Appeals to a National Authority
  additional facts can be drawn from agreed diagrams.
  
  
  Michael Butterfield Thu 16:02

Forums Leader Board

This Month