• Mark Room, RoW, Proper Course, Exoneration
  12 Comments
  Stewart Campbell Today 14:41
• Case Index Enabled/Fixed on Mobile Devices/Browsers
  0 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Yesterday 20:39
• RRS Org's Search-Function is Upgraded
  8 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Sat 20:13
• 18.1(a)(2)
  17 Comments
  Nicolas Ch. Sat 13:02
• How long is the race committee allowed to change the position of the first windward mark?
  51 Comments
  Christian Hartmann 25-Nov-05 19:30

• Mark Room, RoW, Proper Course, Exoneration
  Rob re: "There are no corridors mentioned in rule 18,"
  
  ... and corridors are no longer mentioned in Case 75 (the instigator of the use of the term I think).
  Angelo Guarino Today 22:39
• How long is the race committee allowed to change the position of the first windward mark?

  Niko,   I think there can be value in the +/- five degrees in certain situations. Where we frostbite on Boston Harbor, we're liable to get big swings, and RC will often leap-frog the windward and offset to aim a little bit closer to the new shift in case it stays. In other words, shifting a buoy 4 degrees is regularly the right move in an 8 degree shift. Whether they should then signal is up for debate, but I'd argue that most can still find the mark, and it takes some risk (and work) off for the RC that might encourage them to be a little more active. Just my opinion. 

  
  I think the whole point of Race Management Policies s12 is to discourage race committees from being too 'precious' about small shifts.  Here's the guidance
  
  12, Change in wind direction:
  (a) With a persistent wind shift of 10° or less the course will not be changed unless necessary to adjust for current or to provide a true downwind leg.
  (b) Between 10° and 15° consideration will be given to adjusting the course to the new wind provided that the race committee is confident that the shift is likely to persist.
  (c) With a persistent wind shift of more than 15°, the race committee will attempt to change the course to the new wind
  
  Note that the WS Race Management Policies are intended to apply at WS Championship and Olympic events.  I would suggest at lower level events the criteria should be quite significantly increased.
  
  What s12(a) is saying is that unless there is a persistent wind shift of more than 10 degrees, leave the course alone.
  
  Far from 'encouraging race committees to be more active', the guidance is intended to encourage them not to dither around.
  
  I suggest that a 4 degree change is unnecessary.
  
  In my opinion, switching off the requirements of RRS 33 is a bad idea,  race committees should accept the guidance in the Race Management Policies and put themselves to the discipline involved in RRS 33.
  John Allan Today 21:17
• Fair Play and Disputes: What Happens When Coaches Speak Disrespectfully?
  I support John's position.  Protest committees should hold hearings and take action as appropriate under the RRS.  They should not act as informal policemen -- doing so undercuts their role as judges, and almost always deprives the person accused of misconduct of a hearing.  In effect, any judge who goes to a sailing club or other organization with an allegation is serving as accuser, judge and penalizer without giving the accused any opportunity to defend themselves.  
  
  I have the same view with respect to ordinary protests.  If a protest is submitted it should be heard, and if it turns out to be invalid the protest committee should take no action.  I think this is supported by RRS 63.4(a).  For example, asking a competitor to take a penalty (in a tone or circumstance that implies the competitor should do so) is, in effect, an attempt to penalize that boat without benefit of a hearing.  The judge who does that is not a colleague of the sailor involved, but an authoritative figure who is abusing their power.
  Rob Overton Today 19:24
• Port-Starboard vs Mark Room at Leeward Mark
  Stewart, I'm sure you've snatched many a pebble from a hand. 
  
  Again, I understand the connection you are making .. I'm just suggesting that, when explaining it to others, you are better off not combining them.
  
  Actually, Case 75 is a good example why ...
  
  In Case 75, the ROW boat is also entitled to MR.  In the discussion it is stated that ... 
  
  

  "When S gybed just after position 2, she had not sailed farther from the mark than needed to sail her proper course. Indeed, in the absence of P (the boat "referred to" in the definition Proper Course), S's proper course might well have been to sail even farther from the mark and higher than she did, so as to make a smoother, faster rounding and to avoid interference with her wind by being backwinded or blanketed by other boats ahead, and to be far enough upwind after leaving the mark astern that she could tack without breaking rule 13. "

  
  However, if we change the scenario such that both boats are on the same tack, and inside is not ROW and will not have to gybe ... 18.4 does not come into play ... and the inside KC boat will not get the extra space as described above in the Case 75 quote. 
  
  In that scenario, inside could be sailing inside her PC but be outside of her MR. 
  Angelo Guarino Today 12:02
• Another 18.3 scenario
  Rule 18.3 was changed in the 2024-28 book'  The first sentence now reads;
  
  "If a boat passes HTW from port to starboard tack in the zone of a Mark to be left to port, rule 18.2 does not apply between her and another boat ON STARBOARD TACK that is fetching the Mark.".
  
  In the subject scenario, when Yellow passed HTW in the zone, Blue was not on Starboard tack, so rule 18.2 was not switched off, and Yellow was still entitled to Mark-Room. When Blue then passed HTW the other boat Yellow is was on Starboard tack so 18.2 was switched off again.
  
  
  
  
  
  Phil Mostyn Today 07:24

Forums Leader Board

This Month