• Suspension of "Competition Eligibility" under the WS Eligibility Code Section 5.1(b)
  1 Comment
  Angelo Guarino Today 20:18
• Proper Course NOT close to the mark
  37 Comments
  Jim Champ 25-Nov-17 20:01
• Mark Room, RoW, Proper Course, Exoneration
  26 Comments
  Stewart Campbell 25-Nov-13 14:41
• Case Index Enabled/Fixed on Mobile Devices/Browsers
  0 Comments
  Angelo Guarino 25-Nov-12 20:39
• RRS Org's Search-Function is Upgraded
  10 Comments
  Angelo Guarino 25-Nov-08 20:13

• Suspension of "Competition Eligibility" under the WS Eligibility Code Section 5.1(b)
  I think one of the reasons I'm finding this confusing is that:

  1. In the title of RC 5 they use "Competitor Eligibility" instead of "Competition Eligibility" (maybe a typo) 
  2. Then in 5.1(a)(ii), it's "competing in .." not "... taking part in ..." as used the definition ... so 5.1(a)(ii) can only apply to competitors I guess.
  Angelo Guarino Today 21:33
• Proper Course NOT close to the mark
  "Shortening the course" is an important reason to understand the difference between passing and rounding marks too.
  
  With all this discussion of passing and rounding marks, I want to highlight one of the important aspects of rounding marks.  Rounding marks are one of the few places that an RC can shorten a course and finish.  For instance, looking again at US103, since the SI's did not identify any of the marks as rounding marks, it would have been an error if the RC shortened or changed the course at any of the marks. 
  
  This is important as sometimes you can have marks designated as rounding marks that the string touches but does not "wrap" around it.  In those instances, depending upon the wind direction, the lay lines may be such that a boat may decide for strategic/tactical reasons to sail a course that does not bring them close to the mark (staying close to shore out of current for instance).  Boats that do that run the risk that the RC might finish at that mark.
  
  Therefore even though an advantageous layline may not take you close to the mark, it's a good idea, if there is any chance the race would be shortened, to sail at least close enough to all rounding marks so that you can see if an RC boat is there ready to finish. 
  
  

  32.2 To shorten the course, the race committee shall display flag S with two sounds before the first boat crosses the finishing line. If the course is shortened, the finishing line shall be,
  
  (a) at a rounding mark, between the mark and a staff displaying flag S;
  (b) a line the course requires boats to cross; or
  (c) at a gate, between the gate marks.

  Angelo Guarino Yesterday 15:36
• RRS Org's Search-Function is Upgraded
  Done.
  Paul Zupan 25-Nov-19 01:17
• Mark Room, RoW, Proper Course, Exoneration
  As several people here have pointed out, the test of whether a boat's proper course is to sail to the mark is just that, a test. It does not convey any right to sail a proper course, only to sail a course directly to the mark. The World Sailing Rule 18 Working Party, of which I was a member, knew this would be confusing and worked hard to figure out how avoid having that test. We were unable to find a reasonably concise description of what we wanted, so we kept the wording about a boat's proper course being to sail close to the mark.  
  
  So if the test is confusing, why have it? The reason is simple: The whole purpose of rule 18 is to enable boats to get around or past marks in some orderly way without giving keep-clear boats more room than they need  to do that.  In some situations, boats sail through the zone of a mark without sailing to it -- consider boats sailing past a limiting mark, or finishing a couple of boatlengths from one end of the finishing line. In those cases, we do not want a keep-clear boat with mark-room to have the right to turn toward that mark when she would not ordinarily do so.. One test of whether a boat would ordinarily do something is pepper course, so we went with that. 
  Rob Overton 25-Nov-18 22:15
• Fair Play and Disputes: What Happens When Coaches Speak Disrespectfully?
  There were a couple of US Sailing RRS 69 cases, back in about 2009 that somewhat spectacularly miscarried.  Some protest committees hold the belief that RRS 69 is a 'nuclear option' and its use exposes the protest committee to the risk of legal action if there is the slightest procedural misstep.
  
  This is a somewhat outdated view.
  
  Up until 2013, WS or a MNA under the powers in RRS 69 had the power of 'suspending eligibility, permanently or for a specified period of time, to compete in any event ... '.  For professional sailors this was readily able to be interpreted as a restraint of trade, and could easily lead to court action in the CAS or a civil jurisdiction.
  
  In 2013 and 2017 RRS 69 was changed significantly by:

  • introducing provision for a person to present the case against the accused in the hearing so that there was an accuser and an accused in the hearing and the protest committee was not acting as prosecutor, judge and jury,
  • introducing a right for the accused to have an advisor and a [legal] representative with them who may act on their behalf
  • introducing the standard of proof of 'comfortable satisfaction'
  • raising the threshold of reporting to the MNA from anything above a warning to a penalty above DNE
  • removing all powers of investigation and penalisation by a MNA or WS from RRS 69 and relying solely on the MNA/WS by-laws or regulations.

  
  Here's the main submission
  
  Submission 201-15
  Rule 69, Appendices M & N
  A submission from the Chairmen of the Constitution Committee, Race Officials Committee and Racing Rules Committee
  Purpose or Objective
  To update RRS 69 to remedy shortcomings based on experience since the current version was introduced, and in response to the undertaking to CAS to review the processes.
  The rule should be updated to achieve the following:
  (i) remove the concept of “Gross” misconduct as distinct to misconduct from this rule;
  (ii) to reintroduce a rule of misconduct by supporters, coaches and similar;
  (iii) to maintain the concept of increasing penalties determined by the severity of the misconduct;
  (iv) to establish a higher threshold before the decision of a protest committee should be notified to a national authority or ISAF; and
  (v) to remove from the rule the procedures to be followed by ISAF, which will be set out in a new or amended Regulation generally.
  To improve the guidance to protest committees acting under rule 69.
  To update RRS Appendix N (International Juries) in line with the new RRS 69 and to improve the guidance for the conduct of hearings.

  
  The changes to RRS 69:

  • remove the notion that a RRS 69 hearing is a 'star chamber' in which the protest committee acts as accuser, judge and jury, and the accused is unable to be properly advised and represented.
  • make it clear that it is a purely 'sporting' rule affecting places in races, or participation in a single series of races, and 

  
  The effect of this change has been to reduce the risk that a person subject to RRS 69 action will think it necessary to pre-emptively engage in litigation against the protest committee and, given the entitlement to have advice and representation in the hearing and the effect of RRS 4.3, reduces the risk that any such litigation will succeed.
  John Allan 25-Nov-15 23:08

Forums Leader Board

This Month