It is very simple - it was SOLICITED help - big No.  It was not something all boats could just look up.  It doesn't matter that it was transmitted via an open channel and others could get the answer if they happened to be listening

I know you're in the UK and this does not help, but in the US, Appeals Book Question 118 covers your "related topic" by giving an "it depends" answer. 

Snippet:

Richard Reitmeyer your post really has nothing to do with the OP's described situation

@Christian - that’s 41(d) - to stop someone telling a boat something and then protesting  her. 41© seems to allow anything on an open channel. There’s an argument they if the channel isn’t known then it’s not ‘freely available’ but even that’s dodgy. But on a channel monitored in the race? Seems to fit 42© fine to me. Which is where I think coverage fir the RO being helpful comes from too.

Russell,

Does this document help??

(*I don't know the status of this submiss

ion, or even what year it was submitted, but it seems to make it clear that 'freely available' is considered in terms of money, rather than opportunity.)

@Benjamin - interesting document.  Seems to support my confusion, in the I don't understand the ruling in the Case and it seems wrong to me.  There are four sorts of exceptions to 41, and it falls into the third, information freely available.  Unsolicited information is a different case - and all 4 are independent.

Quoting the case

It's not irrelevant at all, it's the part c exception that makes it allowable.  It's not unsolicited information, so it's not the part d exception that applies - it's freely available and so should be okay under the part c.

So still confused, and still to be persuaded that the Case is not wrong.

I would say it is not freely available - it is freely answered, and would not have been available if the question was not asked.  

@Sue - nice point - but it is free (costs nothing), available to all (so available) and on a known public channel (so freely available in that sense).  So it's not giving any competitor anything that another competitor isn't also getting.  It's freely available information- noting in part c says whether it is solicited or unsolicited.  It seems to me that people conflate parts c and d when considering this.  Part c is silent on how the information may be broadcast -solicited or unsolicited.  Its just that the broadcast has to be available to all.....

You are completely missing the point.  A competitor asking for help and receiving said help is breaking the rules - no matter how the help is conveyed (info over a public radio channel, smoke signals, a banner flown from a plane, add your own ).  What is ok is seeking information, which is freely available to everyone - like accessing the sailing instructions via a web connection to the YC, listening to weather forecasts, using freely available weather routing - all information that you can simply just look up.  I surely hope you can see the difference

Russell - but case 100 explains clearly:

It is irrelevant that A's question and the information she received in response were broadcast on a public radio channel. The help A received did not come within the scope of the exceptions to rule 41, especially not rule 41(d) since she solicited the information. Therefore A broke rule 41.

41 (d) says, essentially, you won't be penalised for receiving unsolicited information.
The negation is not specified: it does not say you will be penalised if you solicit information.  No boat shall receive outside help (first part of rule) is very clear.  The rule says you mustn't get outside help except in special conditions.

The exception in part c is about freely available information, and if it doesn't cost and is there for everyone, it's freely available.  Which information on a public radio channel is.  If it were free on the internet and everyone had access, it's fine, so this is much the same.

Solicited or not is not the point.

Clearly I can't get my confusion across clearly.  It seems to me that the exception in part c allows for any information received on a public radio channel.  Whether you request it or not.  You are not prohibited from requesting any information.  If you get an answer privately, then you've broken rule 41.  But publicly seems to be within the rule.

I know it's not what the rule is supposed to cover, but I still think it does unfortunately allow this, and hence I think the case is not right.

Russell - you fail to grasp the way the RRS and cases are used.  You read rule 41 one way. you interpret the rule a certain way. Sue rightfully points out that your conundrum has been fully answered in case 100, yet you refuse to accept that viewpoint.  This is just like any kind of law: you have various interpretations of certain laws. courts rule on these laws - setting precedent whereupon subsequent legal debates over the same issue will be guided by this legal presedent.
I would expect a national judge to understand that 

I do understand that and can follow that in rulings -but this is a forum for discussion, and hence a challenge to a case seems completely appropriate. Challenges to rule wordings likewise. 

We need a convincing argument that info on the vhf Channel a fleet is monitoring is not “freely available” and I’ve not heard it yet.  How is it different to being a weather forecast on a free website. Any competitor can get it. 

People argue the point they it was solicited - Parts c and d are separate, and so c has to be treated independently, hence solicitation doesn’t come into it. Going back to the internet example to access a web sites information you have to go there, and the browser requests the data - it’s solicited.

OK - I find this interesting because Rule 41 has been discussed over and over and will be forever!

Russell, I applaud anyone who loves a good rule discussion. It is through these kinds of discussion which rules get improved.  I see your point (have done for a number of years now), but I also follow and am comfortable with Sue and Christian's assertion that the Casebook has given us guidance to go forward (which you have acknowledged).

Here is how I see this Rule 41 confusion.

Technically Russell is correct.  The construction of Rule 41 could lean towards his interpretation, and there is nothing in the wording which gives an absolute instruction on how it should otherwise be interpreted.

Look, we know how to apply 41(a) and (b).  Without fail, if they are true, we would call that acceptable 'help', even if the help was say, 'solicited'.  Things go awry when we consider (c) and (d), as Russell has pointed out.

Some topics are so broad that to exactly cover every scenario, we would need a rule book of many volumes.  It should come as no surprise that the rules sometimes are left open to multiple interpretations or may simply need further guidance on their application because it is not possible or practical to concisely write the rule to cover all scenarios.  Hence, for the most common or critical rules, the Casebook is there to set us straight. The Cases bring us back to the intended interpretation and purpose of the rule, notwithstanding that the rule's wording may not precisely or technically agree.  When applying rules in the real-world, (not an internet forum-world) think of the Cases as 'instructional material'.

The casebook is authoritative, and its interpretations stand.

Back to internet forum-world and R41.   Well, there is so much going on here it is quite difficult to 'un-conflate' the different issues which have come up in this thread so far.  Issues such as:

-The technical construction of the rule
-The interpretation of 'freely available'
-The interpretation of 'solicited'
-The intent and purpose of the rule
-Myth and folk law and culture

Let's look at the technical construction of Rule 41.  Here I sympathise with Russell.

As mentioned, 41.(a and b) are simple.  If either are 'true' the help is acceptable.  Moreover, sense and logic (myth, folk law and culture) would tell us that a and b are to be considered irrespective of c and d.  If a capsized boat crew shouted for help because her other crew member was trapped, we would not hesitate to consider that help as acceptable within R41(a), despite the fact that it was solicited.  That hopefully goes without saying or needing a special 'case interpretation'.

If either 'a or b' = 'true', then the help is OK.

The structure of the list 'a to d' is consistent, so it is logical and understandable for someone to apply the same principal to c and d.  In other words, "If either c or d = true, then the help is OK."  <<< This is where Russell is coming from.  Nothing in the rule indicates to us that we must treat c and d differently to a and b.

So, if I were to convert Rule 41 into computer code, as it stands Russell has a good point in saying if the 'help' matches c (in a form freely available (but more on this later)) then it would be an exception and therefore allowable, regardless of d.

To reiterate, the problem is that there is no indication in the rule to treat c any differently to a and b.

Yet, Sue and Christian have rightly pointed out that the point of the Casebook is to provide 'authoritative' pathways of interpretation, meaning and application of a rule where the wording of the rule is unable to do that itself.

In Case 100, we are instructed to consider that the 'help' fails as an exception, on the basis that the help was solicited.  In the absence of any 'OR or AND' qualification in the RRS rule wording, Case 100's interpretation is not a contradiction of the RRS wording. At least not glaringly or difficultly so.  Nevertheless, Case 100 is the authoritative interpretation so rightly or wrongly, we must follow that interpretation until the wording of R41 is changed (which may be never).

So, we must fail 41.(c)-'help' if it was 'solicited'.

Much as I agree with Russell on his technical conjecture, in keeping with the process defined in the rules on how to use them and the casebook, I'm pleased to see that in a protest hearing he would apply the principal of the 'Case 100 nterpretation'.

For the moment then, it is not necessary to explore the other problematic issues I listed earlier.  We do not need to examine the exact interpretation of 'freely available' in Case 100.  We just need to follow it's guidance and fail the 'help' based on the fact that it was solicited. That is what is meant by Case 100's "It is irrelevant that A's question and the information she received in response were broadcast on a public radio channel" sentence.

Perhaps in another post, we can explore that (just like the Casebook does in another Case... Case 120).

Hope that helps us all see each other's viewpoints a little better.

With that argument what would stop a boat that failed to read the course board from radioing the RC asking for the course during the race?  It's done on a VHF so with your argument it is information freely given.  

I think what Case 100 is telling us is that the act of soliciting outside information and then receiving it (by any means, freely available or not) breaks 41.

This makes sense to me. The boat requesting the information potentially gains an advantage over other boats who didn't need the information.

Have read the above thread which I found very interesting. 
Would like to discuss the rule in light of a situation whereby a sailor or a group of sailors omit to make a tactical mistake and/or refrain from making an error in the course following verbal instructions from the Coach during an ongoing race whilst the rest of the fleet were not provided such information since they did not pertain to that particular coach. 

Does Article 41(c) still apply? Can the sailors be penalized if it is proven that without such "outside help" they would have committed such error? 

Verbal instructions from a coach are outside help, exactly within the scope of RRS 41.

None of the exceptions apply.

It is usualy irrelevant whether the boat benefited from the instructions or not.