Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Exploring RRS 41(c) “..information freely available to all boats”
P
Angelo GuarinoNationality: United States
Certifications:
- Regional Judge
- Fleet Measurer
0
I’ve been having an offline discussion with a forum member regarding RRS 41(c). I thought it would make an interesting topic for discussion.
First here is 41(c):
First here is 41(c):
A boat shall not receive help from any outside source, except […] (c) help in the form of information freely available to all boats;
Here are a few scenarios to ponder. In each case does the boat break RRS 41(c)?
A common assumption in all scenarios is that the boat does not have a smartphone or does not have access to the internet on the water, but can make cellular calls. There is no SI restricting electronic communication.
Scenario 1
The SIs for an event are available online and we’re handed out on paper to all competitors. A boat looses the SI’s overboard while racing and thus does not access to the course details. The boat calls a friend onshore who is associated with the OA running the event (thus are familiar with the event’s SIs) and asks the friend to read the SI’s under “Course” verbatim and without additional comment.
The friend reads the SI’s verbatim without comment.
Scenario 2
In the same event above, a nautical chart of the racing area is posted online by the OA and handed out on paper to all competitors. A boat looses the chart while racing and calls a friend, asking them to tell them the depth stated on the chart around gov’t mark G3.
The friend states that the chart depth around G3 is 12 ft.
Scenario 3
Same event, boat looses SI’s overboard and doesn’t recall if there was an SI which declared the starting line “closed” on the DW leg. The boat calls a friend who is familiar with the SI’s and asks if there is an SI which defines the staring-line closed.
The friend looks through the SI’s and tells the boat that they do not see an SI closing the starting line.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
The boat should have a smartphone to access the "information freely available" itself.
A boat drops her only winch handle overboard and is unable to trim the jib or halyards effectively. They ask a friend on a spectator boat to jump in their rib and bring out a winch handle…
To poke this a bit, In Case 100, asking someone if there is a “place to anchor” could be seen as asking for an interpretation of information and application of that info tactically applied to a boat’s situation and physical characteristics. That interpretation and tactical application to a particular boat is not “information freely available”.
In scenario 1 and 2, what is asked for and what is received is simply a recital of the plain information detailed on the documentation freely available. Case 100 is focused on “tactical racing advice”. Case 100 had the opportunity to state that any call for information breaks the rule, and it does not state that.
I think it’s more clear that in Scenario 3, the boat is asking for advice. The friend reads through the SI’s, interprets them for the boat and provides that interpretation/advice, which is on-the-nose with Case 100 IMO.
The friend is only reporting the content of the SI, which is available to all. He "quotes" the SI verbatim again, which is nothing.
He does not advise the boat to go through or to avoid the line.
If the friend interpolated the two nearest depth soundings to the mark in scenario 2, would that be advice?
Have you tried using the wonderful website called racingrulesofsailing.org?
Alongside rule 41(c) and(d) there's a link to USA Appeal US93, which tells us that
I'm with Mike, phone a friend is not using a public source. The nature of the information is irrelevant.
Different if it was, say, a recorded weather service or a speaking clock.
And we still haven't considered what happens if the information is not helpful but harmful.
Bingo - it doesn't matter what information if it is not easily and freely available to all competitors.
Even if it is horribly wrong information that actually harms the competitor - still violates 41C
“The term “information freely available” in rule 41(c) means information available without monetary cost and easily obtained by all boats in a race. “Easily obtained” means the information is available from public sources that competitors can reasonably be expected to be aware of and can locate with little effort.”
“The term “information freely available” refers only to the information, not to equipment or software needed to receive or read the information. ”
It seems to me “what” the information is, is key to the determination. Is the “information” freely available? I think I could make the argument that the actual text of SI 7.3 for an event, is “information freely available” … and that same information was available from a public source.
I think I’m actually with you guys … but I think it’s worth beating on a bit, so I’m making the alternate case as best I can to explore the issue.
Rule 42(c) imposes no obligation on a boat. Its an exception. It's not a rule that a boat can break.
The part of rule 41 that a boat can break is
How is 'horribly wrong information that actually harms the competitor' to be understood as 'help'?
The 'help' is the reading and speaking in the person to person phone call.
Ang,
I think you're overthinking.
US Appeal 93 refers to 'public sources'.
No way is a person to person phone call a 'public source'.
Edit
Case 120 uses the same words as US Appeal 93
“Information freely available” means information that is available without monetary cost and that may be easily obtained by all boats in a race. “Easily obtained” means the information is available from a public source that competitors can reasonably be expected to be aware of and can locate with little effort.
The 1st question to ask is “what was the information provided?” Let’s say it is the text of SI 7.2 verbatim.
After that, was that information “freely available”? Yes, this information (text of SI 7.2 verbatim) was freely available to all racers.
The Cases and Appeals do not directly address the instance where the same publicly available information is conveyed privately. Case 120 seems to be clear that the private information in Answer 2 that Boats B, C and D receive, is unique information that isn’t also available from a public source.
All that said, I tend to agree with your, Rob’s and Mike’s position on this.
Christian and I are fencing around about happens when something is unhelpful.
Case 100 specifies one sort of information that is definitely help, that is 'tactical racing advice', and advice she 'asked for for tactical racing reasons'. That case says nothing about what is not 'help', but I think it may fairly be inferred from Case 100 that advice unconnected with racing or sailing in the race, for example 'what bar would be good to have a drink in after the race?' is not 'help' for the purposes of rule 41. In other words, 'help' for purposes of rule 41 is assistance or information relevant to sailing in the race.
This leaves a grey area of information that is not 'advice', or information that arguably is not relevant to 'tactics'
We could, however, note that the information provided in the Case 100 scenario could be characterised as simple factual hydrographic information, rather than 'advice' using interpretation or providing recommendations.
Case 100 goes on to say that once a boat receives help that is (pardon the double negative) 'not unsolicited', the rule 41(d) exception becomes unavailable, and neither is the rule 41(c) exception enlivened just because the answer was on a common VHF channel.
'Provision of information', I would suggest, encompasses both the information, and the method of delivery. In the OP scenario about reading SI over the phone, It may be useful to further distinguish between
I think that one of the key elements of 'help' in this case is the reading out of the words: this could assist the competitor by relieving them of the necessity or inconvenience of reading the information for themselves, so that they can concentrate on steering, trimming or other racing matters.
So, while the information itself, that is the text of the SI, is freely available, the provision of the information by having it read out is not freely available, in contrast to a recorded weather service, or speaking clock time service.
Thus the freely available test, applied just to the substance of the information, isn't enough to enliven the rule 41(c) exclusion: only if every competitor had the availability of someone to read the SI for them would that work.
Case 120 just goes into a lot more technical detail about 'freely available'.
Coming back to the OP scenario:
Conclusion: the boat broke rule 41.
Whew, all this discussion just because some dopey competitor carelessly threw their SI in the drink.
To take an extreme example, consider a competitor who is blind or illiterate, and has had an assistant who is not a competitor read the Sailing Instructions to them, or even used paid for text to speech software to read the Sailing Instructions to them. By the argument being made, because they have used a service not available to other competitors this is illegal help, even though the SIs are clearly " information freely available to all boats".
In fact, to continue the ad absurdam, suppose a third party prints or takes a photograph of the sailing instructions for a fee, ant the competitor takes that on board and never reads the original. That particular image is not available to other boats. It seems to me that ridiculous situations ensue if you consider the means of transmission of the information rather than the content of the information.
And finally I see nothing in the wording of 41(c) that suggests there is any restriction on how the information is transmitted. Yes, reading of the SI by any third party means is help. But the information has been freely distributed to all competitors. How can it not meet the exception (C)? The rule says available from *a public source*. It does not say anything about whether that public source is used.
Is it freely available from a public source? YES. All competitors have access to the SIs.
The rule does not state "must be obtained from a public source".
You ad absurdam examples would have happened before racing. Rules of part 4 preamble "Part 4 rules only apply to boats racing . . . . ."
This brings up the question on how 41’s exceptions apply .. via “all” or “any”?
Do all 41(a-d) need to be satisfied for the help to be acceptable? Fail to fall into one of the exceptions and you break the rule? or fall into any and the help is excepted? Looking at the list, i think it’s clear it’s the latter.
If your help situation doesn’t fall into 41(a), it can still be excepted from 41 by 41(b). It would then follow that if the help in question doesn’t fall within 41(d) it can still be excepted by 41(c) on its own (which address your “not unsolicited” approach). Clearly a call to a friend (who assumably would like to see you do well) is solicited info from an interested source and does not fall within the 41(d) exception, but that doesn’t take 41(c) off the table.
Also, doesn’t Case 100’s call-out that it didn’t matter that the answer was given over a common VHF channel hint that one might separate the delivery method from the information? (Admittedly, not much more than a hint)
Case 100 describes asking someone their opinion/advice. The answer to the question “Is it safe to anchor?” leverages the applied experience of a sailor who “was more familiar with the area”. The answer “no” is a conclusion by that sailor drawn on their knowledge and experience, certainly not public or freely available info.
It only is in force while racing. You can hire the worlds best weather router, personal coaches or local knowledge specialist and get all the help you want - right up until the prep signal. From then on - don't ask for anything until you have finished the race.
My homble thinking:
Are SI freely avaliable to all boats? Yes, they are. So, the info received by phone do not give an additional advantage toward other boats. She just get even.
Is that an "help"? Definively yes. It solves a problem. But it's an "help" permitted by 41. c)
Then, personal feeling: is that fair? To me, a careless boat deserve to loose. Misplacing SI, and then not knowing what to do. has the same value as forgetting the Jib home. But....
Yes, it would be "simple" if that was how RRS 41 was written .. but it is not.
What you are suggesting is that RRS 41 ended with the sentence I've added in bold below (I use 'notwithstanding' because it is used elsewhere in the RRS) ...
41. OUTSIDE HELP
receive[have equal access to] the same information at the same time and in the same form and fashion.I think the additional sentence encompasses what many have in mind.
c) help in the form of information freely available to all boats;
From the Oxford Dictionary on my bookshelf
Information - something told; *knowledge.*
Available - at one's disposal, *obtainable*
So the information is the *content* of the SI, not the means by which it's transmitted, and available means the *possibility of transmission*, not the act.
So yes its help, but by its very nature - a SI - the *knowledge* of what's in the SI is *obtainable* by all boats.
Like I mentioned, this started with an offline conversation with a forum member who received different answers from different race officials. I'm not confused, but I'm trying to voice how this rule can be read and how other have done so. The way the rule is written is unclear on whether or not the identical information-content which is freely available may be received by private means (assuming that "information" refers only to the content and not its means of transmission). The cases and appeals do not address this instance, so I can see why our forum member got different answers.
John makes a good argument above that the act of reading is the help, which is a different angle at it.
I think it's clear that if you call a friend to ask them to review the SI's to look for something that would close the starting-line (my Scenario #3), that does not fall within 41(c) or (d) as the information is an analysis and application of what someone thinks/concludes, which is not freely available. Likewise, Case 100's information is analysis and the application of what someone thinks (i.e. it's not safe to anchor near a mark).
A Case/Appeal could define "information" more broadly to encompass both the content of the information-help received as well as its method-of-receipt as a single "information-package". This would align with how you and others are reading it and make it more clear.
While racing, a RIB pulls up alongside a boat and hands over a document
While racing a RIB pulls up alongside a boat and reads words out if the SI to the person in charge.
Do we have any doubt that rule 41 is broken here?
As I have suggested the 'help' lies in the giving of the information, neither the free availabiliity of the information nor the transmission over a 'public source' are sufficient to get within the exceptions in rule 41 (c) or (d).
"the term "freely available" refers only to the information, not to equipment or software needed to receive or read the information. "
The first bullet of RYA Case 1998/1 contains some good guidance. "a boat that asks for and is given individual advice that is relevant only to her breaks rule 41."
RYA Case 1998/1
Rule 41, Outside Help
The issues as to whether information and advice are permissible outside help will depend on whether they were asked for, whether they were available to all boats, and whether the source was disinterested.
QUESTIONS
When do advice and information constitute outside help under rules 41(c) and (d)? Do questions of safety affect the ruling?
ANSWERS
The following will serve as general guidelines:
RYA Case 1993/6 illustrates some of the points.
“ …the race committee gives all boats advice or information..”