See WS Q&A 2021-002
Situation
The term ‘hull’ is mentioned in several places in the Racing Rules of Sailing.

Question 1
What is the applicable definition of ‘hull’?

Answer 1
The term ‘hull’ is not defined in the Racing Rules of Sailing, therefore, under the introduction/ terminology, the word is used in the sense ordinarily understood in the nautical or general use.

Question 2
Are bowsprits, fixed or retractable, part of the hull?

Answer 2
No, unless otherwise defined in the class, rating or empirical handicap rules. 

The question will become a bone of contention on boats that have permanent bowsprits that are structurally part of the "Hull" and there is no well defined point where the "Hull" ends and the bowsprit begins. This was not an issue under the old rules where any part of the boat, rig, crew, or sails in normal position was what determined OCS at the start and finish order. It is my understanding that the rule change was anticipating using electronic means to call both OCS and Finishes. That is not going to happen at the club level during my lifetime. All the new rule has done is make it more difficult for club RO's to sight start and finish lines. I used to be able to call a boat OCS when the head and torso of the crew on a trapeze broke the plane, not I have to use my x-ray vision to see if the "Hull" has broken the plane. Same for sighting a finish line, 3 J70's overlapped downwind. Get out the trusty x-ray goggles to see through the sails and sprits so I can sight the line looking for the "Hulls" ... 

I know what the current rules say, however this is a great question and raises an inconsistency with the definitions in Clear Astern, Clear Ahead, Overlap versus Start and Finish . In that context of determining rights while racing around the course, it's the hull and equipment in its normal position that determines advantages or obligations. However after all that hard work using the full length of hull and equipment in its normal position, if we were a boat with a longer sprit that had gained overlap rights around the course based on hull and all equipment in normal position, we are no longer ahead at the finish line against an adjacent boat that also has hull and equipment in normal position, but the hull portion only, is an inch ahead? Our sprit that was included when considering an overlap advantage around the course is no longer applicable? I have never understood the logic of the change in defining the start and finish, particularly in mixed fleets. The RC's ability to clearly see just the hull portion crossing a line with overlapped boats, ruling out the projection of sails on downwind finishes in particular, is often less obvious. In one design racing, since all boats are the same, what's wrong with using the hull and equipment in normal position? In mixed fleet racing, filtering out all the equipment as they cross becomes convoluted as described above. Perhaps someone can remind me of the underlying  logic of excluding equipment in normal position in the definitions of start and finish.

The reason I was given by internationally certified judges and ROs was to anticipate the use of electronics (Amreica's Cup, Sail GP, etc) to monitor start and finish lines. Since they can't (or haven't yet) come up with a transponder that can show starts, finishes, or overlaps that include equipment in normal position, they changed the rule to what the systems can indicate; the "Hull"

We are not going to see that level of electronics at the club level ever. So why saddle everyone with a rule that was designed for the less than 1% of events that have and can use the technology?

And in this picture, the bowsprit is part of the hull.

Randy,

It's great to discuss this, as the confusion caused by bowsprits at the start & finish vs bowsprits establishing overlap is real and important. (BTW, boomkins matter too.)

However, as someone who has grown up in the tech industry and watch all sorts of claims like: "We are not going to see that level of electronics at the club level ever." turn out to be obviously false within a few years, I'd suggest that the point you're really trying to make is something more like: "It doesn't work now. So that's not a good reason." (A quick hint, I've seen prototypes of this working now. Multiple products are under development.)

All that aside, I never understood the motivation for this change in the rule, and I'm keenly interested as I sail a boat with a 14' bowsprit and a 6' boomkin. This matters. 

See Q&A 2021.002 which I submitted when the new rules were released.

World Sailing Racing Rules Question and Answer Service
Q&A 2021.002
4 January 2021

Meaning of ‘hull’ in the Racing Rules of Sailing

Situation
The term ‘hull’ is mentioned in several places in the Racing Rules of Sailing.

Question 1
What is the applicable definition of ‘hull’?

Answer 1
The term ‘hull’ is not defined in the Racing Rules of Sailing, therefore, under the introduction/terminology which prescribes that other words are used in the sense ordinarily understood in the nautical or general use, the definition in The Equipment Rules of Sailing for 2021-2024 is appropriate:

D.1.1 Hull
The hull shell including any transom, the deck including any superstructure, the internal structure including any cockpit, the fittings associated with these parts and any corrector weights.

Question 2
Are bowsprits, fixed or retractable, part of the hull?

Answer 2
No. See answer 1.

The Equipment Rules of Sailing rule F.1.4(c)(i), defines bowsprits as hull spars. The Equipment Rules of Sailing rule F1.4(c), defines hull spars as spars attached to the hull. The Equipment Rules of Sailing definition of hull excludes hull spars, therefore bowsprits, whether fixed or retractable, are not part of the hull.

Question 3
Are the wings of a skiff, fixed or retractable, part of the hull?

Answer 3
Yes.
Neither the Equipment Rules of Sailing nor the Racing Rules of Sailing define whether or not the wings of a skiff are part of a boat’s hull. Unless the class rules define wings otherwise, the wings are considered to be an extension of the deck and therefore part of a boat’s hull.

will the boat sink if the bow spar breaks off? yes -> part of the hull.   no -> attached *to* the hull - not part of it.  just my humble opinion

I assume we can't modify the 'rule' in our Sailing Instructions as its a Definition not a Rule - maybe we need World sailing to publish a test rule to allow race officers to modify the definition in the same way we can now modify the definition of a start to allow alternative penalties for OCS.  (Test Rule DR21-01)

That would satisfy the majority of club racing scenarios while allowing the professionals to do their own thing.

Also ... A question that comes to mind is "How are Hull and Bowsprit measured for rating systems like IRC" - looking at the photos others have posted my immediate question is where does the hull finish & the bowsprit / Hull Spar start.  I think its common to measure "J" the length to the forestay attachment ... which in Catalan Benaros' photo is behind  where I'd instinctively put the front of the hull / start of the bowsprit - do we take a line along the straight part of the bow & estimate where it intersects the moulded hull/hull spar union?   (Yes, rating systems will all treat these matters differently... but I'm trying to think of examples where this measurement has been defined).   Its not immediately clear to me where the front of the hull is with those sorts of boat.

Sorry, I stand by this statement. The hardware and software are an expense that is NOT needed for club level racing. Are we going to create another barrier to entry for recreational racers? Do we expect Clubs to bear the expense? How reliable are the systems given the typical level of club maintenance. How critical is mounting and calibration of the "hull" unit? Will every boat have to have one and the calibration checked? Will the measurement team be able to lock out changes in the calibration during a regatta? Will Club or Regional level regattas now have to include the cost of measurement and calibration in entry fees? Will all hull transponders be compatible? Will there be a requirement that each new generation of transponder be backwards compatible so we don't all have to buy new ones when the original hardware and software specification is found not to be robust enough?

Many clubs struggle to attract and keep recreational racers out sailing. If a club goes to this unneeded and grossly impractical electronic system for starts and finishes, it means that 100% of the boats must use it. It means a first time racer that doesn't know if they will enjoy racing and my want to continue cannot "give it a try" without buying a gadget they might only use once. 

IMO the use of electronic means for starts and finishes should be allowed for in the RRS as a Class Rule choice. Any Class that makes the use of transponders mandatory must also provide the equipment to the OA. 

Recently my club was asked to host the Optimist North Americans (our 4th). IODA has this whiz bang, way cool, transponder system that is designed to record mark rounding order. The system uses SMS technology. That means each unit needs a SIM card. We asked IODA where to send the bill for 125 SIM cards and a minimum activation for each. We didn't use the system.

It was ill advised to change the rule for everyone to accommodate professional sailing. There are separate rules for Match Racing, RC Sailing, Board Sailing, Kite Sailing ... Put the "Hull" rule in the "People who take sailing and themselves way too seriously" section. Leave the rest of us alone.  :-)

I am surprised with some of the comments - I find this makes calling starts and finishes easier.  That is the general consensus of the people I have talked with about this rule change.  Especially on big lines with boats with bow numbers.  I am already looking there to get their number.  

I agree in some cases, as you note, in large fleets with boats large enough to have easy to read bow numbers, starts can be easier to call. However in events like ILCA Worlds we are looking at sail numbers anyway. In most grassroots club racing, boats are not likely to have bow numbers. We have an active J70 Fleet, they finish downwind. Under the old rule it was easy to know what boat broke the plane of the finish line first, leading edge of spinnaker or bowsprit is very easy to see. We have some very close finishes with boats overlapped. The bow number and hull of the leeward boat are obscured by the windward boat. In a very tight finish it makes it nearly impossible to call the finish order because we can't see the "hull". Yes we have seen lead changes at the finish in the space of a J70 bowsprit.

The change in the rule for starting and finishing was to accommodate professional level sail racing and electronic monitoring of boats relative to start and finish lines as well as course boundary lines in the "made for TV" sailing series. I think the same criteria that is used for determining overlap should be used for starts and finishes. Change the rule for the professional series that use the electronics, not for everyone.

Everyone has different experience, but for the events we run, none are better served by the rule change.

We will have to agree to disagree. I find it easier with all kinds of boats.  

The Wild Oats XI photo in the post is from several years ago. Below is a more recent photo of the bowsprit.

The change has cleaned up some of the ambiguity regarding normal position when finishing.

2017-2020
Finish "A boat finishes when any part of her hull, or crew or equipment in normal position, crosses the finishing line from the course side."
The 2017-2020 definition of finish required the finish line caller to determine if the crew or equipment was in normal position. If they were they finished when the crew or equipment crossed the finish line, if they weren't they finished when the hull crossed the finish line.

2021-2024
Finish "A boat finishes when, after starting, any part of her hull crosses the finishing line from the course side." The new definition requires less judgement on behalf of the finish line caller.

Are the crew or equipment on these boats in normal position?

Mark, clearly those two images weren't normal. In the majority of finishes I've seen over 55 yrs of racing, spinnakers and equipment have been in a normal trimmed position with no "letting fly" going on. I frankly doubt if the vast majority of race officers have seen even one of these deliberate "cheating" moves in years of calling the finishers. The only time I have seen a "cheating" finish was in long ago 12 metre races where a spinnaker was let fly ahead in a close finish. It was blatantly obvious and pretty simple to call that one. With respect to starts, non-fixed sprit boats are straightforward to see across the start line since the hull is obvious, along with any pulpit projection. On the other hand, fixed sprits and how they are fixed, and their relative different lengths, present a fair amount of variability. At long distances down the line, i can see it being more difficult to call when that thin pointed thing crosses the line, versus the stem of the hull. The last Wild Oats picture you posted, presents another interesting situation. In looking down the start line, what's the most obvious forward part of that boat to see crossing the line? The tack of the headsail which is ahead of the stem, and in its normal position. If that's true, for fixed sprits, perhaps it would have been better to define a start and finish as the furthest forward part of a Hull, the sails and equipment in its normal, excluding the length of fixed sprits. As for this change in the definition of start/finish, if it was partially motivated by possible technology availability, some very good points were raised about availability, affordability, ubiquitous use across all levels of racing, integrity of calibration and setup etc... that raise greater issues to manage than seeing when hull and equipment crosses a line.

Well, I guess it's too late now to debate the implementation except to say it seems like a hammer with other implications (e.g. establishing overlaps) to crack a tiny nut of a problem.

Tim re: “Well, I guess it's too late now to debate the implementation”

That’s one of the purposes of this forum .. to allow people to share ideas and offer them for discussion and debate. As long as everyone remains patient and respectful in their comments .. this information might inform those who have an impact on future rules changes …. and every 4 years we get a new set of rules .. so it’s dynamic.

Andrew brought up a test-rule and Test Rule DR21-01. What I would say there is Andrew is correct in pointing out that Definitions cannot be changed by NOR or SI .. so we are where we are.

Also, though some here dislike the change while others like the change, the new rules ARE in fact workable.  On the contrary, DR21-01 was necessary because the new 2021 definitions “broke” the previous ability to redefine rule 28’s ‘sail the course’ and write-in starting penalties in the SI’s. . Without the test rule, there was no way to write SI’s that applied a starting-penalty in leu of having the OCS boat correct their start (without DR21-01 such a boat can’t sail the course or finish).  I know what was involved in that process and it was quite an effort to get over the line. 

What I’m saying here is that though some may not like the new definition, it didn’t break anything that I can see .. it’s workable .. and as you see opinions vary on whether it makes things easier or harder.  Unless there was a huge clamor from RO’s and OA’s, it might be a hard sell for a TR.