Forum: Race Officers
Learning from Mistakes
John Palizza
Nationality: United States
Certifications:
- Regional Race Officer
- Regional Judge
5
I am compiling a booklet that I hope will be helpful for people who want to run sailboat races. It will be tentatively titled "Essays in Race Management: Sea Stories for Race Officers". One section will be subtitled "Learning From Mistakes", which comes out of an Advanced Race Management seminar where the participants were asked the question “What is the worst mistake you’ve made while running a sailboat race?” That question has stuck with me as I am a firm believer in the maxim that we learn more from our mistakes than we do when everything goes smoothly. We all make mistakes - goodness knows there are a thousand ways for a race officer to screw up on a race course. The important thing is to learn from the mistake and not repeat it; or, better yet, find a way to recover from the mistake so that the competitors are not disadvantaged.
So, herewith, is my biggest mistake. I hope that you will share yours and the lessons you learned from it and allow me to compile it in my booklet.
John Palizza:
I was running a high school regatta a couple of years ago, and it was what is referred to as a Tier 3 event, which means that the teams racing were not attempting to qualify for any other event. As a consequence, things were a bit more relaxed and I was trying for a “kinder, gentler race committee” approach where we were responsive to the high schoolers’ questions and trying to not make the race committee as intimidating as it can be at times.
Prior to the start of the first race, before the sequence began (i. e. the boats were not racing at that point), a competitor sailed past the committee boat and asked, “Do we have to sail through the gate before finishing?” The course was set up as a windward/leeward with a windward mark, an offset mark and a gate above the start/finish line, which was directly below the gate. Wanting to be helpful to the young high school sailor, I very cavalierly replied “No, you don’t have to go through the gate before finishing. Of course, in spite of the fact that I had written the sailing instructions, I got it wrong. The sailing instructions very clearly showed that you had to go through the gate prior to finishing.
Then the inevitable happened: the competitor did not sail through the gate before finishing and was promptly protested by another boat. I had to go to the protest hearing and testify that it was my mistake that the competitor did not go through the gate. Redress was awarded to the competitor and they were allowed to retain their finishing position.
Talk about egg on your face. To this day my son, who is also a race officer, likes to remind me that I couldn’t remember the sailing instructions I had written.
Lesson learned: When asked a question about the sailing instructions, before answering, ALWAYS LOOK IT UP! A corollary to this is what judges learn: whenever a rule comes into play, always pull out the rule book and read the rule before answering.
Comments
[You must be signed in to add a comment]
I always ask the competitors at the Skipper's Meeting: "How do you hide information about the regatta from the racers?" The answer is, of course, "Put it in the Sailing Instructions."
Is your point … ?
It's the same thing we do as managers when an employee has missed something. Generally, you can't pull them aside and tell them they're doing it wrong. Instead, we grab the group, note the issue, and ask everyone to work to clean it up. At least then if you have to repeat yourself, you've given everyone a chance.
I'm wondering whether the most useful outcome will be John's final booklet or just the process we have here discussing the anecdotes.
As to John's first incident, I wonder what the lessons we should learn are?
Said Created: Today 19:18
Are we somehow saying that a document headed Notice to Competitors' advising a change to the SI is somehow different from a document just headed 'Amendment to the SI'?
How is any document posted on the Official Notice Board not a Notice to Competitors?
Or is Ant just saying that to change a course, the written document must say it is an Amendment to the SI, and amend the SI chapter and verse?
On reflection
Ant Davey
Technically no rule requires competitors to read the SI or any other document.
But most protest committees would find it a fault of the boat's own if considering redress.
Said Created: Today 18:43
'Read the Sailing Instructions' is notoriously unhelpful and sets a really bad tone for relations between the RO and competitors.
I'd suggest something like
'Got your Sailing Instructions? What part of SI nn is not clear to you please?'
Just to clarify
A document on the ONB saying merely 'Course 1 is changed to ... ... .' is ineffective because of case 32.
But
A document on the ONB saying 'SI nn is amended to read "Course 1 Start - 1 - 1a - ... ... .' is effective?
The remaining criteria which needs satisfying:
rule[SI] and state the change.”PS: I’m not suggesting at all that it’s good practice to only do the above and not also upload/post the SI amendment alongside the original version of the SI’s, such that they can be located together in one place.
It's possible that sailors in other classes would have a different set of common race committee mistakes. It'd therefore could be worth working with different classes to ask them to reach out to their members for input.
By the way, I cringed a little when using the world "Mistake" since it sounds a bit harsh, and it's important to recognize that race committees do their best. It's hard to run races for classes you don't know, and competitors should keep that mind when giving feedback.
I think you’ve described the best practice where I was looking at the rule min. … which was spurred by the idea of a request for redress by a competitor claiming the amendment represented an improper action or omission by the RC (which I think keys off of the RRS min required actions of an RC).
What does L flag over numeral pendant mean?
I can guess, but I can't find it in
And BTW where is a requirement to display flag L if a notice is posted stated?
I can't see any rule that requires the race committee, or anyone else to display it.
https://youtu.be/e7yzPgAseTk?si=ZuG9AR3ugnY4_FJi
This scenario can more easily happen when the race is a random distance race around set/govt marks and RC creates the course on the fly on the water based on conditions. I was not on the RC for this one (I was a competitor).
The SI described a distance/random course around govt marks in the Chesapeake Bay (~20nm). The SI’s stated that the course would be displayed by placards on the RC, green letters rounding to starboard, red letters rounded to port, all marks displayed by the RC are rounding marks. There were 4 marks M1-M4 all rounded to port with a course Start - M1 - M2 - M3 - M4 - Finish.
The start and finish were between the RC and an inflatable (allowing the RC to more easily position for an upwind start/first-leg).
The RC positioned themselves perfectly for a nice upwind first leg. However, they didn’t pay as close attention to how that position setup the final leg, and inadvertently had it such that the rhumb-line/string from M3 to the RC didn’t touch M4 on the port side. Sailing from M3 to Finish, M4 would naturally be a passing-mark to port .. and to round M4 would require boats to buttonhook M4.
Luckily, the leading boats treated it as a passing mark and all other boats followed suit … no boats button hooked … no boats protested .. the race was scored as sailed. I noticed this on my way to M4 … which had me sail a longer course and I lost a boat because of it. Seeing this put me in an awkward position … buttonhook and protest thr leaders .. or take the loss of place.
Interesting thought … if this race happened today and given the new requirement that the RC score boats NSC now. Had the RC realized their error, would the RC be required to score all boats NSC, file an R4R for all boats, and hand it to the PC?
Again, I wasn’t on the RC, but was a competitor. This happened accidentally (RC forgot to mod A2.1, but intended to) in 2 regattas this past season from different YC’s. In one regatta it was a single day regatta with only 3 races. In the other a 2 day regatta with only 5 races.
In both instances it swapped places in the top 3. In one case, it swapped 1st/2nd place.
So remember, if you are running a regatta with multiple races scheduled, think long and hard how many races would be required to be completed for there to be a toss-out (if any). Even if you have 3-4 days scheduled, remember weather/conditions might reduce the races to only a handful.
PS: IMO … the default for A2.1 should be changed to be no toss and require a change in the SI’s to have one.
Don’t Accidental Create Button-hook roundings
Was the all marks are rounding marks baked in the the SI?
In particular, if your SI allow only 1 race to make a series, you need to not have the only race you run excluded.
I think there's a Submission for that in the 2024 rule changes.
I'm not for one moment arguing that matters specified in the SI should be changed by a slap-dash Notice to Competitors, or that the L flag should not be used.
I do think that some of your ideas are over-elaborate for a competitor rostered on as a club RO.
CAN Appeal CAN74
Race committees should never set courses so that the taut string in the definition crosses over itself at any rounding mark since this would put boats in the same or different races at unnecessary hazard with each other in their rounding manoeuvres.
Yes. In the Chesapeake Bay, select govt marks are identified by region of the Bay and assigned letter-designations. The SI stated the course would be described using these marks/letter-designations. By default, these marks are not defined as rounding marks … SI’s can designate them passing/boundary marks or rounding marks. The SI for this event stated that all marks of the course described by the placards were rounding marks.
The CAN Appeal makes a good ancillary point … that marks are not “rounding marks” unless specifically stated in the NOR/SI.
This brings to mind the point that for these types of RC defined random-leg races, shortening cannot be done at a passing-mark (the mark needs to be a rounding-mark).
So even if the course-string would naturally touch each mark on its proper side when tightened, designating specific marks as rounding marks can communicate to competitors that they may need to sail close enough to those marks such that they can see if the race is shortened at that mark.
Roger that. My comments were focused more on random-legged courses designated around fixed/govt marks .. where RC’s are creating these courses on the water and communicating them to the fleet(s) via placards or course-board off the side of the RC.
Maybe you could get away with it if each vertex of the course specified in the SI was clearly convex on the chart, even if the chart wasn't included or referenced in the SI, but the moment there is doubt you're in trouble.
Jim Champ provided this example
All marks to starboard.
If 2 is at 2x, it's a simple rounding mark.
If its at 2y its a looping mark.
How are competitors to know which?
An either way provision as in Case 82 would be helpful.
The typical SI what will prescribe OTW course descriptions based on placards designating marks will use the terminology, “ … green to be rounded to starboard, red rounded to port ..” or something to that effect. This language precludes designating marks as passing/boundary marks.
In the spirit of anecdotes/hints about errors … I thought this was good to keep in mind.
Many times in this circumstance the RC will use one of the fixed/govt marks as the starting/finish pin. In that case, the RC can more easily recognize the string-rule error, as often there would be a chart as part of the race docs highlighting these marks.
In my example, it was the placement of the RC randomly with a drop mark that caused the issue, focusing on their orientation to the first mark. Had the RC plotted their position on a chart or entered the chosen course on a chart plotter as a route, the problem would have been more evident.
Not so. A shortened course can be finished at any line the boats must pass through.
The line (not line segment) need not have buoys at each end - nor at any end.
To salvage a race that is otherwise doomed to time out, the RC can use any line that it can monitor, whether or not the competitors can identify the line - or the signal.
We may be splitting hairs here, but:
'passing mark' is not a term used in the RRS. There are just 'rounding marks' and marks that are not 'rounding marks'
A line or a gate is not a Mark.
RRS 32.2 provides three distinct provisions for rounding marks, gates, and lines.
This strikes me as a novel idea. Do you have a Case, Appeal or Q&A to support this interpretation?
and the chuckling acknowledgement of my Race Officer instructor
What I have done in a dying wind situation (and I will freely admit that this will probably drive some judges nuts, and it is not technically correct) is if it is a multi-lap course to have sailors finish at the start/finish line, which is usually mid-course. I tell the sailors well in advance so that they stay reasonably close to the finish line area and do not go off to either side of the course, either via radio or by having a safety boat inform all of the sailors. This is of course if I or a mark boat can't set up at a gate or mark before the boats get there. I would not do this at a higher level event, but for local regattas, the sailors much prefer to finish the race rather than have it abandoned. Call it practical rather than technical race management.