Tim, 44.2 is completely customizable in NOR/SI’s. Maybe suggest the change the next time you are involved in writing/reviewing docs and see how it shakes out ? [I'm not in favor of an actual change to the rules, but an event can try it out]

As far as your wording .. I might change “approaching a mark” with “in the zone of a mark”.   Approaching is too vague IMO.   

PS: anytime on the leg is too lenient … too much gaming the system opportunity IMO. I might favor a time certain … like “within 1 min of the incident”.  That should be plenty of time to mull it over without time to game the system. 

This would create the opportunity to strategically take your turns penalty. That's not desirable to me. While I understand your intentions, gaming this rule would be commonplace to effectively lessen the penalty. I do write in something similar to the second half of your (a) in most race documents, but only for the windward mark. 

This would create the opportunity to strategically take your turns penalty. That's not desirable to me. While I understand your intentions, gaming this rule would be commonplace to effectively lessen the penalty. I do write in something similar to the second half of your (a) in most race documents, but only for the windward mark. Your rule (d) effectively eliminates Case 108. 

The "as soon as possible" moment is already very well gamed.  Changing the wording will make it a field day for certain types of sailors.

Here is my reference point to this.
It is a 2016 Olympic Decision Woman Radial.
The International Jury made a decision that 10 seconds after hearing the hail of protest was too long.
Facts found:
1.CHN and USA were close-hauled on starboard tack about 3 boat lengths from the windward mark. CHN's track was ahead and to leeward of USA's track 2. CHN tacked to port onto a collision course with USA. USA immediately bore away and passed astern of CHN. 3 USA hailed "Protest" immediately, and again 5 seconds later, and again 4 seconds later as CHN passed the mark. 3. CHN heard the second hail of protest when she was on starboard tack approaching the mark. She rounded the mark and began her two-turns penalty, 10 seconds after she first heard the hail of protest. 4. There were no boats to windward of CHN as she approached the mark on starboard tack. 

Conclusion:
1. CHN on port failed to keep clear of USA on starboard and broke RRS 10. 2. CHN did not get well clear of other boats as soon after the incident as possible, Therefore, her penalty turns did not exonerate her for her breach of RRS 10. 

Rule(s) applicable:
RRS 10, 44.2 

Decision:
CHN DSQ in race 2 

I thought about the gaming potential (which certainly exists in match racing) but I’m wondering what specific examples of gaming might be in fleet racing. About the only one I could come up with would be aiming outside zone at a mark and using the tack or gybe that you’d be doing anyway as part of your penalty turn - but that would still require sailing extra distance and might net out worse than just taking a normal penalty turn.

I agree that “approaching” is subjective but I figured if it was good enough for RRS 20 it would be good enough here. In practice “in the zone” is kind of subjective as well, it’s always someone’s assessment of three boat lengths.. I figured as long as the boats were in the vicinity of a mark it wouldn’t hurt to allow the boat to round, similar to SIs that let a boat complete an offset leg before taking a penalty.

I wouldn’t want to include a specific time limit like “one minute” - whose clock are we using? Before rounding the next mark gives a clear-cut expiration.

I can also see where this might get crosswise with 24.2. How would another boat know if a boat was starting a penalty turn or just doing a normal tack or gybe. But maybe that’s not a problem if the boat is well clear when they start their penalty.

Appreciate all the feedback.

It is well understood. The fouled boat needs to see the penalty and not have to keep watching. This is a penalty and it needs to be done when required not when you choose. To enforce it is a penalty if you otherwise gain an advantage the penalty is not applicable.

I do however agree it is a good si to change to not have to do a penalty before a spreader mark. 

Robert, presumably CHN should have tacked onto port immediately on hearing the hail and done her turns above the starboard layline? That might have satisfied the jury but I doubt if the rest of the fleet would have preferred it.

The most obvious gain is to keep sailing after you fouled "in traffic" and wait until the fleet spreads out so you lose 2 boats, not 30 boats. We'd be buried in "significant advantage" protests and protests that they never did turns when they really waited 5 minutes. 

I see no reason to lessen the impact of having to do penalty turns at all.  You screwed up and now you have to take your lumps.  Hell - in the old days, there were no penalty turns. You broke the rules - you retired from that race.  The less of an impact of penalties the more you  see boats breaking the rules. It is a simple risk/reward thing.

Hmm - should a penalty be more severe if it occurs in traffic rather than in isolation? Same rule broken either way…

I expect there was a reason why penalty turns got put in and overall I think it’s better for the sport (not sure I’d agree that there’s more rule breaking with RRS 44 in than before). 

I’m just not sure it’s better to say that you have to retire or go to the room if you take 11 seconds to figure out whether you broke a rule. Heck, it usually takes umpires more time than that to decide whether to penalize or not, to say nothing of juries.

Tim
Note that the International Jury found as a fact that there was no boats to windward of CHN. Thus it was possible for her to tack and sail further to windward to take her penalty. 

Now saying that I have seen in SI's that any penalty associated with the windward mark or the offset leg, the penalty can be taken after passing the offset mark.

Tim - let's just agree to disagree.
The point of immediacy for taking a penalty is to make it harder to game the system and lessen the impact of the penalty.  Unfortunately, some people still try to do that - hoping to not get caught and end up in the room.  Just like some people (usually the same folks), who will only take a penalty if they get called out on the water.
Yes, it should be more costly to commit a foul in traffic - the gain is usually much higher (by breaking the rules) and the punishment should be bigger to match the potential gain
And, your claim about 44 not having an impact on the amount of fouls on the course is completely off the reservation. It perpetuated a huge increase in fouls as the risk was severely limited compared to having to retire.

Christian, I'm fine with disagreement. Just wanted to present the issue for discussion.

If I'm not mistaken, the "as soon as possible" part of the rule is primarily to reduce the burden on the boat who has been fouled, and must watch the fouling boat until she takes her penalty. It should also reduce on-water "discussion" (yelling) because the time period of the opportunity is limited.

I would be in favor of SI's that encouraged a signal that a penalty would be taken (or even that one is being considered), or allow penalties after the offset leg, or "within a minute" or some such. I would not enter those into RRS for many reasons including distance sailing where legs can last days, and team racing where immediacy is of utmost importance.

Re the thought that a breach that occurs in traffic should be penalized more severely than one that isn't in traffic - should this concept also be applied to scoring penalties under 44.3, Appendix T, Appendix V?  

I'm not sure an advantage is gained unless the boat winds up better off for having taken a penalty than she would have been if she had not. I wouldn't say that delaying a penalty (if the rules allow it, as in match racing) results in "advantage" just because you're better off by taking your penalty later than sooner.

Re watching to see if a protested boat takes a penalty - I don't think I'd necessarily want to put that burden on the fouled boat anyway. If she doesn't see the protested boat correctly complete penalty turns she should keep her protest flag up to preserve her right to protest. If she finds out after the race that the other boat did a turns penalty she'd have the option of not filing or requesting withdrawal.

Re:  I'm not sure an advantage is gained unless the boat winds up better off for having taken a penalty than she would have been if she had not. I wouldn't say that delaying a penalty (if the rules allow it, as in match racing) results in "advantage" just because you're better off by taking your penalty later than sooner. 

In a large fleet where a port tacker jams in at the windward mark rather waiting in line for the Stb parade to pass and then waiting to the offset mark to do the penalty turns can result in a big advantage gained - make it even worse - a strong foul current on the upwind leg

And the issue with keeping an eye on a protested/fouling boat taking her spins - well who else do you think is going to keep an eye on that?  The protesting boat while now on to a downwind leg, busy hoisting and maybe gybing with a bunch of other boats around? in an ocean/distance race? no other boats around? or just other boats not paying attention? By requiring the immediate spins - everything is just so much easier

I think the wording is as good as it can be.

Think of the the underlying principal of the R44 sailing penalty alongside many other sports; (football (soccer for you!), rugby, hockey (field hockey for you), basketball and nearly every other continuous gameplay sports with referees (umpires for you)).

In all these sports there is a penalty which immediately 'removes' the competitor from the game for a specified time.

The competitor is removed so that they cannot influence the game for the duration of their penalty. The competitor can't choose when they 'get sent offl'.  The penalty is the same whether its the most exciting and critical phase of the match, or a dull boring phase where they won't be missed.

In sailing, the time period is set by the time it takes to do the turns, regardless of the conditions.  (It's worth building that into tactics - 2 turns in no winds is painful!)

Still, the competitor is required to 'send themselves off' as soon as possible.  They must be 'removed' from the game, just like the football 'yellow card' so they cannot influence the ongoing play.

'As soon as possible' is something that can be judged, if anyone wanted to challenge the timing of the penalty.  Both parties then would have to justify their point, and the protest committee can decide.  It's fine that way.

The penalty is not worded so that the fouled boat can check up on the penalty-boat.  The rules presume that people will comply with them.

Similarly, nor is the the rule specifically written to counter the potential for malicious gamesmanship.  (Logically, rules don't protect against gamesmanship, by definition of the word 'gamesmanship'.  Hmm. Interesting concept.)

However, as mentioned, removing/changing the phrase 'as soon as possible' it would make it even easier for the creative rogue to push the limits of gamesmanship.

Possibilities are delaying...:

a)  until the penalty could be incorporated into a mark rounding.
b)  to give wind shadow to an opponent for long enough so that they loose ground or gauge or have to tack away
c)  until more suitable wind/current conditions so that the penalty does not hurt as bad.
d)  enough to calculate the risk/reward of taking or not taking penalty on the water vs in the room.
e)  until the opponent is too far away to see if you correctly take the penalty

...blah, blah, blah.

To stress then...

The rule is written to achieve one purpose - 'remove the boat (and her influence) from the race for a set time'. - A yellow card!

Just my 2 pence (cents for you).

and in the end we have to realise that we are talking about a penalty, it is not wrong if it hurts a little bit …

I agree with the reasons for maintaining the immediacy requirements for on water penalties in the posts above.

If you wish to provide a penalty, less than disqualification or retirement, after a boat has 'had a think ' about the incident, you can use Appendix T to provide for a Post Race Penalty, by default a 30% scoring penalty.

You just need to write reference to Appendix T into your SI.

I strongly recommend Appendix T

Well, my question was whether the window of opportunity for a turns penalty is too short and the consensus seems to be "no, it's fine." Fair enough.

A little history, for anyone interested (and because I'd rather engage in RRS geekery than do work at the moment):

It looks like the alternative penalty entered the rules in 1973 as an appendix which could be invoked by the sailing instructions. The reasoning offered:

The original rule required the boat taking a penalty to immediately start to get well clear and required the penalty to be completed on the same leg of the course (for the purposes of the appendix the "next leg" was considered to start when a boat entered the zone).

Boats taking a turns penalty were required to hail adjacent yachts of their intention and then make their turns. They were also required to report their infringement and penalty actions to the RC. Both of these requirements were written out of the 1977 rules.

By 1981 IYRU Case 105 clarified:

Interestingly, the requirements up to that point were only that a protesting yacht "try to inform" a protesting yacht that she intended to lodge a protest. A flag was required but there was no specific requirement for a hail.  IYRU cases 100 and 104 indicated that if alternative penalties were made available by the sailing instructions the protesting boat must immediately hail her intent to protest, but this wasn't written into the rulebook until 1985. The 1993 rules were the first to include a requirement for a hail of "'Protest' or words to that effect". 

In 1997 this changed to the current requirement for a hail of "Protest." The 1997 rules also for the first time wrote the 720 and 20% scoring penalties into the rules (scoring penalty still had to be invoked by SI, 720 on by default), and removed the requirement that they be specifically invoked by sailing instructions.

In 2005 the 720 penalty was changed to the two-turns penalty we have today.

Here endeth the lesson.

John, I agree on Appendix T. 

In the US we also have prescription Appendix V2 which is basically Appendix T voluntary post-race penalty without the arbitration, which I like even better for less formal races.

Tim,

Great background research.  I wish I had the old Case Books.

I can't see the point of excluding Arbitration, in particular for club races where it has the potential to do the most good.

I agree to use Appendix T more often. Appendix T is much closer to the principle of a self-judging sport, because the sailors take the decision to accept a penalty; it is not the Judge taking the decision. That involves understanding the Situation and the applicable rules, maybe with a little bit help.

Very often sailors forget T1, that a Penalty is acceptable at any time before a meeting. Like in the US prescription.

Robert, thank you for citing that protest in the 2016 Olympics. Is that decision posted somewhere, in case we want to reference it?

(I believe you, but if I'm hearing, or involved in, a similar protest, then it would be good to point to somewhere authoritative.)

Btw, Lily Xu, CHN in this case, had a tough 2016 Olympics, with 3 DSQs... big shift from 2012, when she won: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Laser_Radial

John, most of my source material was old editions of Elvstrom, which it turns out are reasonably easy to find & inexpensive online. Some even still have the little plastic boats. 

Our V2 voluntary penalty doesn't stop a boat from consulting the rulebook or a rules expert but it removes the burden on the PC of providing an arbitrator who should then be excluded from sitting on a jury if it goes that way. I can see instances where either would be appropriate. 

Just a small question about App. "T" - or rather the "Post race Penalty" part of it.
I agree it should be used more, but (and perhaps this should be a separate tread):
How does the PRP and RRS 44.1/44.2 live together in perfect harmony ?!
PRP do not replace the 1 - 2 turn penalty 44.1 and RRS 44.2 say the penalty has to be taken soonest after .... ?
APP. "T" do not change any of these RRS.

Rule 44 refers to 'Penalties  the time of an Incident.

A Post Race Penalty under Appendix T is not 'at the time of the incident ' so rule 44 does not apply. 

Hans … supporting what John says above, consider the language of Appx V in US Sailing Prescriptions.  Note the change-language in V1 (required) and none in V2.

PS: As Tim points out above .. the language of V2 is a nice stand-alone insert into SI’s for post-race penalties without arbitration.  For those outside the US, a cut/paste of the language itself might be required. In the US, just citing Appx V is sufficient. 

I think there are two difference scenarios in play here?

In one, the boat protested knows they have broken a rule and should do the penalty as soon as they can, and it will hurt.  No issues with that.

The second one is more challenging - in a boat on boat scenario where the rights and obligations may be changing quickly, it may not be immediately obvious which boat is at fault, and surely (as was mentioned above) it takes time process that (as demonstrated by match racing officials or on the water judging taking time to assess a scenario and make a call).  In that case, it seems right that the penalty should be taken by the boat that thinks it has offended as soon as possible, but taking the time to come to that conclusion should be allowed, and currently is not.  The issue then becomes - how do you word a rule that can't be gamed too easily, and yet allows a short period of reflection?   

A related scenario (c.f. the USA/CHN case above) - if CHN only heard the second hail of starboard and had done turns immediately then, she could still be protested as they were not immediately after the incident.  Is that right? Her perspective could be that it might be close but no foul initially (as nothing heard), then hears the 2nd protest call and realises had not got away with it so takes penalty.

UNLESS 'as soon as possible' can be successfully argued in the protest room as 'as soon as I had processed the relevant information and decided I was at fault, which was within xx seconds, and then acted immediately' (where xx is small) - in which case it seems ok to me.  Are there examples of this?