Forum: The Racing Rules of Sailing
Skipper not allowed to protest a competitor giving advise - Appendix E
Johan Bergkvist
Nationality: Australia
0
In a hypothetical radio control race, Boat A notices that Boat B missed a mark and doesn't seem to be going back to rectify that. Boat A calls out "<sail number> missed the mark!" at which point Boat B turns back, potentially saving himself an NSC. Boat C now protests Boat A over E2.2. All boats were racing in the same race.
- Did Boat A break E2.2?
- Given the last paragraph of E6.1, is Boat C protest valid?
My guess is "yes" and "no" respectively, but I don't understand why E6.1 E6.2 prohibit boats to protest E2.2. Edit: I meant E6.1.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
Boat C's protest is not valid.
The advice in this scenario is similar.
I think
A careful reading of the rule will see that E6.2 addresses a situation in which the RC, PC, or TC believes a competitor (the person designated to control a boat using radio signals - see E1.1 (b)) may have broken a rule. In which case they may protest the boat that the competitor is controlling.
However rule E6.1 does prohibit
In the incident you describe:
- Boat C should protest Boat B for receiving outside help from an interested source under RRS 41, as changed by E4.2.
- the PC could then protest Boat A under E2.2 (using E6.2)
In other words, the boat can only protest the boat that benefits from the advice, not the giver.
I would argue that the advice given was certainly beneficial, allowing Boat B to gain a significant advantage in the race. Such advice can only be construed as tactical or strategic.
G
In this case boat A provided help to boat B and boat B benefited from that help. And maybe boat B should be disqualified for receiving outside help, (I don't think so but that's another discussion). But I can't see how, "you missed a mark" could be construed as tactical or strategic advice. What if boat A hailed boat B, "protest, you missed that mark," at which point B immediately turned back and rounded the mark properly? B clearly benefited from the hail, but A didn't provide tactical or strategic advice.
Therefore I'm not at all sure that a simple observation of fact qualifies as advice.
[Later] It also occurs to me that our rule writers avoid synonyms and rarely use two words where one will do. The word advice only occurs in E2. 2. As Ken Hardy points out above such choice of words must be intended to create a deliberate distinction, but I suggest its between help and advice.
Its different because a hail of 'protest' is expressly provided for in RRS 61.1(a).
However what about a hail of 'starboard' or 'no overlap'?
Note that RRS E2.2 applies only to radio sailing, and appears inconsistent with Cases 41 and 107 which positively encourage hailing.
See Jim's post above. I think that in its context the OP scenario hail is advice.
But A has no need to do that until B finishes (RRS 61.1(a)(3))
Circling back to your first question, I wonder how a hail 'Protest Sail Number NNN missed the mark' would be treated.
Is a boat going to be penalised for complying with RRS rule_link('61.1')?
I submit that 41 and 107 hails are primarily observations about the current situation. A prudent hail about an obstruction might be said to influence future tactics, but only marginally. It seems to me a hail of you missed a mark is in the same area, primarily an observation that assists sailing the course without breaking rules. Any advice is only implied, as indeed hails about obstructions only imply action.
The E2.2 restrictions, it seems to me, must be about something rather different.. "There's a header coming, suggest you tack on it" is clearly advice and I suggest obviously prohibited. It's a communication intended to influence future action. "You missed a mark" on the other hand is not directly influencing future action. The recipient is not given a course of action. They must decide for themselves whether to go back and round the mark, continue sailing the course (and hopefully retire after finishing) or retire immediately. Each of those may be reasonable responses in different situations.
Protesting Boat B under R4.2 is interesting. It's according to the rules, but seems unfair to me when it is help Boat B cannot decline. Once Boat B has heard what Boat A said he's doomed. Boat B can not un-hear it. So either Boat B has already "received help" and has broken E4.2 OR, Boat B can not act on the provided help and is doomed to not return and round the mark. In either way, it feels like the fault lies with Boat A, not Boat B.
'When boats are sailing in close proximity, it is seamanlike to inform the other boat of one's intentions or to remind them of their obligations.'
'However, any guidance or recommendations offered with regard to tactics or strategy given by a competitor would break rule E2.2'.
Surely, sailing the correct course is a core element of any race strategy. In this case a competitor has warned another competitor that his boat is sailing a course than breaks RRS 28, and thus allows the boat to correct her error, thus gaining a considerable advantage. As far as I am concerned this is a flagrant breach of RRS E2.2. The competitor that received the advice has received outside helpin the form of unsolicited advice from from a source that is not disinterested, thereby breaking RRS 41.
Furthermore, WS Call RS R3 concludes:
Tactical or strategic advice that procures an advantage, or is intended to procure an advantage, for the competitor's boat giving that advice breaches recognized principles of sportsmanship and fair play and may break rule 2.
I/m not sure how boat A, giving that advice, procures an advantage. Yes, boat B may procure an advantage, but not A.
I agree that R3 of that book is helpful guidance for this scenario. But I think it bolsters my interpretation of E2.2 and it's applicability to this scenario.
R3 makes clear that it is not a violation of rule E2.2 to "...inform the other boat of one's intentions or to remind them of their obligations." Isn't telling somebody they missed a mark exactly "reminding them of their obligations?" Further, case R3 actually provides two examples of what constitutes tactical or strategic advice: "Advising a boat to tack and cover another boat, or to stand on and take advantage of a favorable wind shift, would be considered to be tactical or strategic advice." This is inline with what most people would think constitutes tactical or strategic advice. Note that E2.2 does not prohibit a competitor from simply "giving advice". Nor does rule E2.2 prohibit a competitor from saying something that would help another competitor. Only providing "tactical or strategic advice" is a violation of rule E2.2.
If it's found that A broke rule E2.2 in offering unsolicited tactical or strategic advice, then would B be exonerated under 43.1a?
The strategy is the plan of action taken to achieve that overall aim.
Key difference in RRS E2.2 is that it casts a prohibition on the boat proffering 'advice' not to do so that nowhere appears in the main body of the RRS.
I'm not persuaded on the face of it by your distinction between 'advice' and a statement of fact. A person can be advised of a fact.
As you noted RRS 41.1(d) refers to 'information', not 'advice'.
However RRS E2.2 refers to 'tactical or strategic advice' which seems to have some sort of ingredient additional to mere factual information.
Call R3 resolves the matter in large degree
No. A competitor sailing in a heat that informs another boat of her position in the heat, including informing her that both boats are in a position to be promoted to the next heat or, for instance, of any obligation to keep clear or give room, is not tactical or strategic advice. In the same way, a starboard tack boat that indicates to an approaching port tack boat that she may cross is not giving such advice. When boats are sailing in close proximity, it is seamanlike to inform the other boat of one's intentions or to remind them of their obligations.
However, any guidance or recommendations offered with regard to tactics or strategy given by a competitor would break rule E2.2. Advising a boat to tack and cover another boat, or to stand on and take advantage of a favourable wind shift, would be considered to be tactical or strategic advice. Any competitor, whether sailing in the heat or not, that gives such advice would break rule E2.2.
If the test was 'influence future tactics' then I wouldn't agree that 'marginal ' was relevant, but the Call R3 test is considerably higher.
Call R3 says informing ... a boat of any obligation to keep clear or give room, is not tactical or strategic advice. I can't see the difference between informing a boat that she is likely to break a Part 2 rule and any other rule
Just so, and the second paragraph of the Call quoted above sets the standard.
I'd have to think about 'directly'.
I do think this is quite a good test.
Yes, that works!
B received unsolicited information from an interested source. Therefore B received outside help from an outside source not covered by the exception set out in RRS E4.2(e). B broke RRS 41 as modified by E4.2(e). The rule states that a boat shall not receive help from any outside source. Any source includes sources that break a rule.
In what way was B compelled to break RRS 41 by A breaking RRS E2.2? B chose to act on the basis of the information received and gained a significant advantage.
As Rule 41 is a rule of Part 4 the applicable penalty is DSQ.
A gave help when he spoke, B received help when she heard A and acted upon the information to her advantage. If B had continued sailing, or even promptly retired I would not suggest penalising her.
The essence of RRS 41 is receiving information, Acting on or benefiting by the information is irrelevant.
One of the main functions of RRS 42(d), before it was changed by RRS E4.2(d) was to innoculate a boat receiving unsolicited information from another boat from breach of the rule.
I agree with Johan. B breaks RRS E4.2 the moment she hears A's call and that A making the call compelled B to receive it.
RRS 41 as modified by RRS E4.2 is about receiving help from any outside source.
Help is making it easier or possible for (someone) to do something by offering one's services or resources (Oxford on-line).
In order to penalise B I would expect there to be evidence that the information offered was actually followed up B using that information to do something.
So if a boat receives help in the form of information from a competitor she breaks rule 41. The rule says 'receives help' not 'help is made available'.
An analogy would be:
- 'do you want a tow' = help has been offered
- tow line is passed, made fast and boat is towed = help has been received
In this case:
- 'you did not round the mark' = help has been offered breaking RRS2.2
- on hearing this boat turns round and returns to round the mark as required = help, in the form of unsolicited information from an interested source has been received
It doesn’t appear to me that 61.1(a)(3) is changed in Appx E. Boat A may protest Boat B before Boat B finishes. I think inherent in that ability is for a boat to correct her error based upon that information has she yet to finish.
It is not uncommon for a boat to add the rule breach to the protest hail. “Protest, you didn’t give me mark room!” “Protest, I had to alter course!”
PS: Also, added information regarding the nature of the protest is not uncommon when the breach is not obvious … say for a CR breach. For instance in the J105 class (and many retractable bowsprit classes), you cannot extend the pole until the bow passes the windward mark. In that case, a boat may take a one-turn penalty … so it’s important to let the boat know what the protest is for “Protest, you extended your pole too early!”
The protest is invalid under E6.3. The correct Hail 'A's sail number protests B's sail number.
It might also be considered incorrect because B has not yet broken RRS 28.1 as she may correct the error before crossing the line to finish (see 28.2).
However, this invalid protest hail is unlikely to be considered as advice if it is a one-off occurrence. Race officials suspicions might be aroused if the hail is repeated on several occasions in different heats. Race officials might then consider if there was a pattern in these repeated incorrect hails (addressed at sailors from one club or nation). in which case the PC might consider protesting under RRS 2, Fair Sailing
61.1(a)(3) doesn’t seem to survive E6.3, so it appears the RC rules are silent on timing of rule 28 protests.
Are there any RC Calls regarding the timing of Rule 28 protests?
Hailing between boats is giving information, and may readily be construed as giving help.
Leaving aside hails that are misleading or untruthful or otherwise 'unhelpful', Cases 41 and 107 positively encourage hailing, thus making it clear that not all 'information' is to be considered as 'help' prohibited by RRS 41.
Radio Sailing Call Book Call R3 discusses hails that are 'tactical or strategic advice'. In passing, I think the meaning of 'tactical' and 'strategic' in this context corresponds to the meanings used in the RYA coaching manuals: 'strategic' means in relation to wind and water conditions, in contrast to 'tactical' which relates to inter-boat manoeuvering. Used together they obviously mean both or either.
The Call describes a spectrum of hails in ascending order as follows:
The Call states that items 1 to 4 are not 'tactical or strategic advice' and should not result in any penalty, but that items 5 and 6 are prohibited 'tactical or strategic advice'.
Personally I strongly disagree that item 4 is not 'strategic' advice. While it does not relate to wind and water considerations, it's highly relevant to 'regatta strategy', but if the Radio Sailors want it that way, so be it.
In the OP scenario, a boat calls out "<sail number> missed the mark!", alerting that boat that she was likely to break RRS 28.
Gordon has contended that this information is highly strategic and falls within the 'tactical or strategic advice' prohibition.
Other posters have said that informing a boat that she is likely to break RRS 28 is no more tactical or strategic than a a hail of 'starboard' or 'room'.
Considering the above 'spectrum', I suggest that the OP hail fits comfortably between item 2 informing a boat of an obligation to keep clear, and item 3 informing a port tacker that she may cross, and thus, according to the Call, it is not tactical or strategic advice and leads to no breach of a rule.
Has anyone else got anything more to say on this issue?
I agree that RRS E6.3 deletes the express permission for a hail for breach of RRS 28 to be made either before or at the first reasonable opportunity after the other boat finishes.
On the other hand no rule says that such a hail shall not be made before the boat finishes.
Hailing 'protest' before the boat finishes breaks no rule.
Here's a quirk. Up to 2021, RRS 61.1(a) began 'A boat intending to protest shall ... ', thus the 'first reasonable opportunity' began at the time the protesting boat formed the intention to protest. In the 2021 rules, 61.1(a) has been changed to read 'The protesting boat shall ... '. There is now no beginning point stated in the RRS for first reasonable opportunity. I suppose we must continue to take it as either the incident or the intention.
I think a hail of 'protest' immediately before or immediately after an incident is OK, but I wonder about Radio Sailing: without 61.1(a)(3) to validate the hail, is a protest hail other than at the finishing line valid?
and BTW, a hail of 'protest' is not a protest. A protest is an allegation made under rule 61.2 ... . That is 'in writing'.
We haven't worked out why E6.1 prohibits E2 protests. E2 is such a diverse set of rules that I almost wonder if E2 used to be a single rule in an earlier version?
The prohibition on competitors protesting breaches of E2 or E3.7 was introduced in 2017.
You can see previous versions of any part of the RRS for the last three quads by going to the Rules page of this website and selecting the quad in the drop-down menu, top left.
1. Because these are infringements by competitors not boats
2. For the same reason that many SIs add NP to some instructions: to avoid vexatious protests