• Language language language
  6 Comments
  Michael Moradzadeh Yesterday 06:09
• Why is the "red flag" needed?
  27 Comments
  Angelo Guarino Fri 21:38
• Case 104 - Appeals to a National Authority
  2 Comments
  Jerry Thompson Thu 15:23
• Which way to cross finish line where course altered by land?
  23 Comments
  Michael Moradzadeh Tue 17:35
• Retiring
  3 Comments
  Gordon Davies 25-Nov-29 19:32

• Language language language
  I have only been at this for a couple of years and mostly at a Club level. Going in, one of the guiding principles of writing NoRs, SIs, &c. as taught, is to achieve consistency. Part of this is to use the appendices to write new documents and not necessarily resort to "rolling over" last year's or whichever previous wording might have been in use. Who knows if that was even correct?
  An amendment is a real thing, in my view, posted to reflect a change to the published instructions. There are likely deadlines to make changes prior to and during an event. 
  You usually have to post two versions of the amended article -- the original, strike it, and follow with the amended instruction. Admittedly, kind of legalese... but that's what we've got.
  
  
  Joseph Owens Yesterday 21:59
• Why is the "red flag" needed?
  Jim said I'll play devils advocate.
  I'd like to respond point by point.
  
  

  1. A boat should know if she has broken a rule.

  
  The RRS don't deal with what a boat 'should' do:  they state what a boat is required or entitled to do.
  
  It is not a breach of sportsmanship for a boat or competitor to not know or not understand a rule.  There may be consequences but there is no obligation.
  
  It may be that a boat will not necessarily know that she has broken a rule.  Consider Case 50.  A port tack boat can cut it fine, and the helm may be concentrating on steering.  They may not know whether the starboard tack boat changed course or not.  The port tacker may believe that there was no reasonable apprehension  of collision, and the starboard tacker may believe the conntrary:  it will be up to the protest committee to determine reasonableness.
  
  

  2. A boat that has broken a rule is required to take a penalty even if there is no hail or flag.

  
  This is referring to RRS 2.  You can't possibly 'clearly establish' that a boat breached a principle of sportsmanship by not taking a penalty for breaking a rule if she doesn't know that she broke the rule in the first place.
  
  

  3. It therefore follows that to only take a penalty if and after the protest notification requirements have been met is at the least verging on unsportsmanlike conduct.

  
  If it's 'verging' on unsportsmanlike conduct then it is not clearly established and RRS 2 is not broken.
  
  I heartily dislike attempts to turn RRS 44, which is permissive, or grants an entitlement:  'a boat may take [an on-water] penalty ...' into an obligation that a boat must take a penalty, by the route of RRS 2.
  
  

  4. Given a really strict and literal interpretation of 44.2 it could be held that the time interval for hearing a hail and seeing a flag exceeds the delay permissable for starting to get clear of other boats, and therefore makes the alternate penalty invalid.

  
  See my other post:  I don't agree that a strict and literal interpretation of RRS 44.2 means 'instantly'.
  John Allan Yesterday 21:56
• Case 104 - Appeals to a National Authority
  additional facts can be drawn from agreed diagrams.
  
  
  Michael Butterfield Thu 16:02
• Which way to cross finish line where course altered by land?
  The change of direction to finish may be due to the nature of Case 82. If the SI's clearly write this, then there is no questions or arguments.
  Kim
  Kim Kymlicka Wed 02:44
• Retiring
  see below.
  RYA 2001/2

  
  

  Rule 2,  Fair Sailing

  Rule 60.3(b),  Protests: Delivering a Protest

  
  When a boat believes that she may have broken a rule and retires in compliance with the Basic Principle, she may revoke her retirement within protest or declaration time if she later realises that she did not in fact break a rule.

  However, if she is not acting in good faith, she breaks rule 2, Fair Sailing.
  ASSUMED FACTS

  
  Boat A lodged a protest against boats B and C for sailing the wrong course. Boat B did not believe she had done so, but ‘did the sportsmanlike thing’ and retired. Boat C did not retire. Within protest time, boat A checked her facts with the race committee, and found that her protest was unjustified. She withdrew her protest against boat C.

  
  QUESTION

  
  Was boat B then entitled to ‘unretire’?

  
  ANSWER

  
  The rules are silent with regard to ‘unretiring’. When a boat retires in compliance with rule 44.1, Penalties at the Time of an Incident: Taking a Penalty, for having gained a significant advantage or causing serious damage in the act of touching a mark or breaking a rule of Part 2, that is irrevocable.

  
  When a boat retires for some other reason, as in this case, and has indicated her retirement either to the race committee or to another boat, she may reverse this decision before the end of protest time or declaration time, whichever is earlier, provided that she has not broken any other rule in the meantime. For instance, retiring during a race, using her engine, and then resuming racing would preclude ‘unretirement’.

  
  However, if she has no good reason to ‘unretire’, she breaks rule 2, Fair Sailing, and the protest committee should, if necessary, extend the protest time limit for any boats that did not proceed with a protest against her because of her initial retirement.

  
  Question from Royal Southampton YC
  Michael Butterfield Mon 11:36

Forums Leader Board

This Month